M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
By your logic, the union of a man and a donkey could also be called a marriage.
- Status
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
As for my sources:
“Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe.” - John Boswell
Boswell died of complications from AIDS in the Yale infirmary in New Haven, Connecticut on December 24, 1994, at age 47.
So much for the reliability of your source, who certainly had his own axe to grind.
Requiescat in pace.
“Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe.” - John Boswell
Boswell died of complications from AIDS in the Yale infirmary in New Haven, Connecticut on December 24, 1994, at age 47.
So much for the reliability of your source, who certainly had his own axe to grind.
Requiescat in pace.
M
markomalley
Guest
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
markomalley
You’re absolutely right (/sarc). We should go back to those halcyon days before Christianity ever darkened the face of the earth. Maybe Obama can appoint his horse to the Senate. Virgin sacrifices anybody? Maybe we could line the Via Appia with crucified slaves as well.
And maybe we could even throw a few Christians to the lions. Ah, the good old days!
You’re absolutely right (/sarc). We should go back to those halcyon days before Christianity ever darkened the face of the earth. Maybe Obama can appoint his horse to the Senate. Virgin sacrifices anybody? Maybe we could line the Via Appia with crucified slaves as well.
And maybe we could even throw a few Christians to the lions. Ah, the good old days!
A
Alexia2000
Guest
And do tell me, where on Earth will you get that many lions from; the Christians have almost made them extinct; was it revenge? 
-------
I cannot understand this thread; the objections don’t seem to match the question. The question is simply, Gay Marriage is a Civil Right; or was that a statement?
All Civil Rights have been obtained through law; law as made by the State and not by the Church. The Church is quite at liberty to abide by its’ laws; don’t let gays marry in Church; period; the State can’t change that unless the Churches start receiving State funding. And why should a Muslim or an Atheist be forced to pay taxes to fund the Catholic Church? (that is a topic for another thread)
The State, on the other hand, has to cater for all its’ citizens; not just the few Catholics but the non-Catholic Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and the largest voting population: the Atheists
-------
I cannot understand this thread; the objections don’t seem to match the question. The question is simply, Gay Marriage is a Civil Right; or was that a statement?
All Civil Rights have been obtained through law; law as made by the State and not by the Church. The Church is quite at liberty to abide by its’ laws; don’t let gays marry in Church; period; the State can’t change that unless the Churches start receiving State funding. And why should a Muslim or an Atheist be forced to pay taxes to fund the Catholic Church? (that is a topic for another thread)
The State, on the other hand, has to cater for all its’ citizens; not just the few Catholics but the non-Catholic Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and the largest voting population: the Atheists
S
surritter
Guest
Alexia – good point: let’s go back to the subject of the thread.
We are pointing out to you that there is no such thing as gay marriage; thus the question (or statement) of the subject line is not possible.
It’s not about hating people, or lording power over others. It’s about what a marriage really is. If we find that some of the benefits of marriage (such as rights of survivorship) are needed by groups other than those who can be married, then perhaps they need to draw up legal papers delineating those rights. But it is not a civil right. And it does not merit a ceremony with a reception. And it should not be limited to two people. And those would not be marriages, despite what you wish to call them.
We are pointing out to you that there is no such thing as gay marriage; thus the question (or statement) of the subject line is not possible.
It’s not about hating people, or lording power over others. It’s about what a marriage really is. If we find that some of the benefits of marriage (such as rights of survivorship) are needed by groups other than those who can be married, then perhaps they need to draw up legal papers delineating those rights. But it is not a civil right. And it does not merit a ceremony with a reception. And it should not be limited to two people. And those would not be marriages, despite what you wish to call them.
A
Alexia2000
Guest
Hi surritter
OK, the position in the United Kingdom is that the Civil Partnership Act permits a Civil Partnership between two people of the same gender (and they have to be the same gender; two people of the opposite gender can only ever have a Civil Marriage). The Civil Partnership Act gives ALL the rights of a Civil Marriage to the same-gender couple as the Civil Marriage gives to an opposite-gender couple
The ceremony is in the registrars’ office but no reference to God can be made. At our ceremony, we invited two of our close friends; the witnesses. Our families wanted to join us in our celebration but we knew that they will find it all rather awkward; our families are quite religious. Let us face it, on hearing the words, “you may kiss the bride”, the two of us would have been tripping over each other
Personally, my partner and I, do not call our Civil Partnership, a Marriage. Our respective parents are married; we are not; but it doesn’t matter what it is called, as long as it gives us EXACTLY the same civil rights as any other couple in this country who have gone through a Civil Marriage
I said this on another thread and I’ll say this again. There is a move to permit Civil Partnerships to be conducted in Churches (and other religious buildings). Neither my partner nor I will ever want to have that Civil Partnership ‘blessed’ in a Church for we know that it will mean nothing; and we don’t need that nothing
We don’t move around in LGBT/GBLT/whatever circles for we do not have anything in common with sexuals of any kind (including heterosexuals); all our friends happen to be heterosexuals and that is simply because heterosexuals are greater in number than the other types of sexuals; more chances that we would end up meeting these type of sexuals. So I cannot tell you if our views match those of the lesbian ‘community’ and we certainly do not have a clue as to what the gays want
If you (or others) are offended by the word marriage to be applied in the context of Civil Partnerships then I, personally, do not have an issue with that. However, if the gays want the word to be used in Civil Partnerships and the majority voting public take their side then unfortunately, you are out of luck
As to whether these partnerships should be allowed between multiple people; why not. But since there has been no call for it (I guess there isn’t a demand or a need for it) why bother wasting parliament’s time in debating a Bill which serves no practical purpose
OK, the position in the United Kingdom is that the Civil Partnership Act permits a Civil Partnership between two people of the same gender (and they have to be the same gender; two people of the opposite gender can only ever have a Civil Marriage). The Civil Partnership Act gives ALL the rights of a Civil Marriage to the same-gender couple as the Civil Marriage gives to an opposite-gender couple
The ceremony is in the registrars’ office but no reference to God can be made. At our ceremony, we invited two of our close friends; the witnesses. Our families wanted to join us in our celebration but we knew that they will find it all rather awkward; our families are quite religious. Let us face it, on hearing the words, “you may kiss the bride”, the two of us would have been tripping over each other
Personally, my partner and I, do not call our Civil Partnership, a Marriage. Our respective parents are married; we are not; but it doesn’t matter what it is called, as long as it gives us EXACTLY the same civil rights as any other couple in this country who have gone through a Civil Marriage
I said this on another thread and I’ll say this again. There is a move to permit Civil Partnerships to be conducted in Churches (and other religious buildings). Neither my partner nor I will ever want to have that Civil Partnership ‘blessed’ in a Church for we know that it will mean nothing; and we don’t need that nothing
We don’t move around in LGBT/GBLT/whatever circles for we do not have anything in common with sexuals of any kind (including heterosexuals); all our friends happen to be heterosexuals and that is simply because heterosexuals are greater in number than the other types of sexuals; more chances that we would end up meeting these type of sexuals. So I cannot tell you if our views match those of the lesbian ‘community’ and we certainly do not have a clue as to what the gays want
If you (or others) are offended by the word marriage to be applied in the context of Civil Partnerships then I, personally, do not have an issue with that. However, if the gays want the word to be used in Civil Partnerships and the majority voting public take their side then unfortunately, you are out of luck
As to whether these partnerships should be allowed between multiple people; why not. But since there has been no call for it (I guess there isn’t a demand or a need for it) why bother wasting parliament’s time in debating a Bill which serves no practical purpose
S
surritter
Guest
But it doesn’t give all the rights that marriage does. It may give all the legal rights as seen by the government, but it is not built around a sexual relationship that is designed to bring new life into the world. So respectfully, you do not have a family cell that has a right to bear children. That is not a legal thing, that is from biology (sex = babies).
Since your partnership is not built around sex that is ordered to procreation, it is not a marriage. And you have agreed not to call your partnership a marriage. But in the next sentence you refer to your parents’ marriage, saying “but it doesn’t matter what it is called.” Um, yes it does matter. Their relationship is one that is ordered toward procreation. Yours is not.
Since you see marriage as only something that confers rights in a legal sense, that is why you see no difference. So I might agree with some of the things you are saying; but those civil arrangements can never be called marriages. They are simply legal papers – what is there to celebrate?
Since when is the definition decided by what the majority voting public thinks? Oh, that’s right. Ever since we made “marriage” purely a legal arrangement. But that’s my point: marriage is not just a legal arrangement. It is based on something that can never be voted out of the picture.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Alexia
As to whether these partnerships should be allowed between multiple people; why not. But since there has been no call for it (I guess there isn’t a demand or a need for it) why bother wasting parliament’s time in debating a Bill which serves no practical purpose.
As a Catholic, do you regard homosexual relations as sinful?
As to whether these partnerships should be allowed between multiple people; why not. But since there has been no call for it (I guess there isn’t a demand or a need for it) why bother wasting parliament’s time in debating a Bill which serves no practical purpose.
As a Catholic, do you regard homosexual relations as sinful?
A
Alexia2000
Guest
Hi Charlemagne
If your query is to ‘trap the lesbian into condemning others of her kind’, then shame on you
Otherwise, I will try and answer your question. If you want a yes/no answer, then the answer is yes. Why yes? Because the Bible says so and as a Catholic, whether I understand the reason or not (and I don’t), I have to go by what the Bible says
I am in a relationship with another woman; probably not as long-lasting as heterosexual relationships; just the last 15 or so years. However, we do love each other, care for each other and are monogamous
We chose not to start with a physically intimate relationship and, thus far, we have managed to stay true to our initial choice
If what we have is sinful, then we can’t help it. This is the best we can do and I don’t think that God expects us to be able to do anymore than our best
Your question is in the context of the faith. And only in that context, do we feel that we must remain non-sexual otherwise we will end up committing a sin
Our friends (mostly non-Catholic) ask me why would I want to be part of a faith which does its’ utmost to reject me; I don’t know Charlemagne; perhaps it is because I am mentally unbalanced for any sane person would have run the full 1.62 kilometres by now
If your query is to ‘trap the lesbian into condemning others of her kind’, then shame on you
Otherwise, I will try and answer your question. If you want a yes/no answer, then the answer is yes. Why yes? Because the Bible says so and as a Catholic, whether I understand the reason or not (and I don’t), I have to go by what the Bible says
I am in a relationship with another woman; probably not as long-lasting as heterosexual relationships; just the last 15 or so years. However, we do love each other, care for each other and are monogamous
We chose not to start with a physically intimate relationship and, thus far, we have managed to stay true to our initial choice
If what we have is sinful, then we can’t help it. This is the best we can do and I don’t think that God expects us to be able to do anymore than our best
Your question is in the context of the faith. And only in that context, do we feel that we must remain non-sexual otherwise we will end up committing a sin
Our friends (mostly non-Catholic) ask me why would I want to be part of a faith which does its’ utmost to reject me; I don’t know Charlemagne; perhaps it is because I am mentally unbalanced for any sane person would have run the full 1.62 kilometres by now
A
Alexia2000
Guest
There is nothing wrong with our ‘biology’; we could ‘bring new life into the world’, but we don’t want to. Don’t tell me that you have never heard of sex with a man; we have; they are not that difficult to obtain either; they are a dime a dozen
And as to rights; we have as much ‘right’ as anyone else to bear and raise our own children, if we so desired
I did not say that it doesn’t matter what our respective parents’ marriage is called. I said that it doesn’t matter what our Civil Partnership is called; if it makes you happy, then on this forum, we will call it the ‘MOST IMPORTANT LEGAL PAPERS EXCHANGE FOR ALEXIA AND HER PARTNER BECAUSE THEY LOVE EACH OTHER AND WANT TO BUILD A LIFE TOGETHER’ Act of 2005
Well, for my partner and me it is a day of celebration; we are not asking you and the Americans to celebrate it and make it national holiday. Similarly, your Civil or otherwise Marriage or Civil Partnership will be for you to celebrate; with all due respect, I am sure you are a very nice person but we don’t even know you, so you will forgive us and our friends if we don’t join in
I have no idea what you mean. Ofcourse definitions are decided by the majority and the minority have to follow or they will simply not be understood. But, they are at liberty not to be understood; I certainly won’t stand in their way if they wish to cut themselves from the rest of Society. It is their right and I am not into curtailing other peoples’ rights
surritter, although I am a Catholic, I am also a citizen of a democracy. And in that democracy, my partner and I are equal to everyone else as they are equal to us. We call it, ‘Equality’
I think the problem is that although you are discussing an issue of Civil rights, you are confusing these rights with the Bible; the State has nothing to do with the Bible or the Quran or any other such book; the laws of the State are ratified in Parliament and apply to ALL its’ citizens
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
Completely different since same race has never been considered of the essence of marriage, whereas opposite sexes has been pretty much universally. Apples and oranges.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Alexia2000
I’m impressed that you have lived with your friend for so long without sexual relations. This to me is certainly not a sinful relationship, and not at all what we are talking about here.
I don’t know why you are defending the marriage contract between members of the same sex. Neither in any religious context nor in any civil context in the history of the world have homosexuals sought the approval of their religious and civic institutions. They always understood that since marriage is the institution that promotes having children and rearing them, they had no claim on the institution. Now they lay that claim. This is because, I think, they no longer have the shame they once had for their unnatural sexual relations.
In the ancient world, as Plato said, homosexual relations were tolerated, but at the same time they were regarded as shameful (even by Plato himself in The Laws).
Why should society be expected to countenance the legal creation of an institution that is fundamentally unnatural and shameful? How will history judge a society that is the first society in the world to legalize homosexual marriage?
Will they call it an egalitarian society or a society that has fallen off its collective rocker?
I’m impressed that you have lived with your friend for so long without sexual relations. This to me is certainly not a sinful relationship, and not at all what we are talking about here.
I don’t know why you are defending the marriage contract between members of the same sex. Neither in any religious context nor in any civil context in the history of the world have homosexuals sought the approval of their religious and civic institutions. They always understood that since marriage is the institution that promotes having children and rearing them, they had no claim on the institution. Now they lay that claim. This is because, I think, they no longer have the shame they once had for their unnatural sexual relations.
In the ancient world, as Plato said, homosexual relations were tolerated, but at the same time they were regarded as shameful (even by Plato himself in The Laws).
Why should society be expected to countenance the legal creation of an institution that is fundamentally unnatural and shameful? How will history judge a society that is the first society in the world to legalize homosexual marriage?
Will they call it an egalitarian society or a society that has fallen off its collective rocker?
R
rossum
Guest
I disagree, being the same race was considered essential for marriage in large parts of the US for many years up to and beyond 1865.
I might also point to Ezra 10:2"We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women"
Which was the sort of quote used to justify the racial criterion in marriage.
rossum
A
Ashley42
Guest
What I want to know is, why does the Church pour so much time, effort and money into stopping gay marriage, and almost none into stopping cotraception, sex outside of marriage, divorce, adultury, etc?
Indeed it could. Some people do call that a marriage:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4748292.stm
(Ok it’s a goat but you get the idea)
This entirely demonstrates my point that the definition of marriage is variable. The Sudanese people might call that a marriage. You and me might not. US Law might be changed to call a union between two men or two women a marriage. You will probably keep your definition.
Who’s right and who’s wrong?
The answer to that is simply - Nobody. Everyone uses their own definitions of the word. To the Sudanese, the man-goat union is a marriage. To the US Government, a man-man or man-woman union is a marriage. To you, only a man-woman union is a marriage.
Take the word “Athlete”. Some define that as a person who participates in running, throwing and jumping competitions. Others might say it is a person who participates in sport in general. Who is right? Again, neither. They are just two definitions of the same word. While one person may call a soccer player an athlete, I might not. Are either of us wrong? Only by each others definitions, not our own.
Sorry, what is it about suffereing from a widespread disease is it that makes a source unreliable? What about the other sources?
Z
Zatzat
Guest
I’ve heard this " argument" from a number of religious people and I can understand that you all think that it’s some kind of a rock solid, check mate, kind of argument.
However, in all seriousness, it’s a very weak argument.
Consider this;
On the other hand, there is no such thing as God. Regardless of what the Catholics say or don’t say.
Are you convinced by the rock solid argument I just presented?
No? You mean you still believe that God exists? How could you, I just said that a God can’t exist, how could you think otherwise?
The argument I just presented to you, is just as persuasive as your argument.
It’s not.
S
surritter
Guest
Zat, please read the previous posts in this thread. It might take awhile, but real, substantive reasons have been given as to why marriage cannot be between anyone other than one man and one woman. Perhaps you are trying to change the direction of the thread to challenge Christianity in general.
To someone who is not familiar with the background of marriage (natural law and biology), it is true that a statement such as “there is no such thing as a marriage between two or more people of the same sex” might not be convincing on its own. But look further back than just the quote you extracted to learn the deeper reasons why that quote is true.
S
surritter
Guest
Because “gay marriage” by definition (natural law definition, not your arbitrary one) is contraceptive, adulterous, and outside of marriage.
A
Ashley42
Guest
So what? Why are there no Catholics rallying against Durex/Trojan/etc? Why is nobody trying to pass a ballot inititive to ban divorce? Why are there no calls to pass laws banning the sale of contraception?
A
Alexia2000
Guest
Hi Charlemagne
There is nothing impressive at all about us not being physically intimate. All my life I have felt that I was asexual; for many years, I was a member of AVEN (Asexuality Visibility and Education Network). I still sometimes wear the t-shirt; no, I am not kidding; it reads “this is what an asexual looks like”; and then I get guys walk up to me asking me what is an asexual is
What I find remarkable are those Catholics who are not asexual and are in same-sex relationships and yet think about chastity. For me, it is quite easy; for my partner, more difficult. But for some (or a lot?), it must be a nightmare. Put yourself in their shoes; not doing something which feels right and normal just because the Bible says so. That takes courage and very, very strong belief. I don’t think I could have done that had I not been the way I am
I am not defending anything in the context of this religion. The question was about Civil rights; and Civil rights questions are only ever decided upon by Society and not religions; well, not since the dark ages
If society as a whole is in favour of same-gender marriages then same-gender marriages will be enacted in law; if society feels that it is wrong, then the Bill will never become an Act. Atleast, this is how things happen in the United Kingdom
I am not in favour of imposing my Catholic belief (a minority belief) on to the majority. I can’t say about America and the Americans but in Europe, it is a widely held belief that Catholics and other religious zealots are the ones who require psychiatric treatment and not the gays or anyone else. Afterall, look at this from an Atheist’s point of view; the Catholics are walking around with a book which they say is the word of God and all that is written in it should be law. When the Atheist asks to meet this God so he/she can question him, we turn around and say that God is all around us; at this point, the Atheist takes three steps back and whilst staring at the Catholic in complete horror, takes out his cellphone and dials 999. Do you get the picture?
You cannot turn the clock back 2,000 years; accept it as it is. Does not mean that you have to accept that same-sex marriage is a marriage; however if 50%+ of the population accept this then you are a minority; and in the United Kingdom, Catholics form less than 6% of the population and the ones who actually take the religion seriously, are less than the 6%. Coincidentally, the gays form 6% of the population too and they, as far as I know, take their ‘gayness’ quite seriously. But that still leaves 88% who don’t have an agenda, either way. The decision will not be made by the gays or the Catholics (both combined together are a minority) but by the 88% who are the majority
I can only surmise the result from how I see my friends treating me; in the best case scenario, they think that I will grow out of this (Catholicism) just as a child grows out of childish behaviour; at worst, they think that I am loosing touch with reality and that some psychiatric treatment is in order. Think about it from their point of view. Who they knew as an intelligent and educated woman is know talking about invisible beings who have sent her messages written in a book. I know this, because they are concerned about me and share their concerns behind my back with my partner
I cannot ‘win’ this ‘fight’ with them; all I can do is to swallow my pride and continue in what I believe is right for me. I think that if I do this, then in time, they might start respecting me and taking me seriously again; but if I start wailing and throwing my arms around and evangelising then I fear that one day I might find myself sectioned in a mental institution
In conclusion, if asked, I will not vote on this issue; I am neither for it nor against it. But I am against Civil Partnerships (same-gender marriages/legal arrangements/contracts/whatever) being ‘blessed’ in the Catholic Church
BTW, my partner is not just my friend; although she is my best friend too. But she is far more than that; she is my partner, we are exclusively for each other, we love each other and we will spend the remainder of our lives together. Oh, and under no circumstances are we ashamed of any of that. The fact that we don’t shout across the roof-tops about ourselves is because, for one thing, this is a private matter and for another, it might cause hurt to some people. However, we don’t see that same courtesy being extended to us
At Mass today, the priest talked about the purpose of Lent; something which made a lot of sense to me was that Lent is also a time when we should reflect on our sins and how we can improve ourselves; too many people are busy improving others rather than themselves
There is nothing impressive at all about us not being physically intimate. All my life I have felt that I was asexual; for many years, I was a member of AVEN (Asexuality Visibility and Education Network). I still sometimes wear the t-shirt; no, I am not kidding; it reads “this is what an asexual looks like”; and then I get guys walk up to me asking me what is an asexual is
What I find remarkable are those Catholics who are not asexual and are in same-sex relationships and yet think about chastity. For me, it is quite easy; for my partner, more difficult. But for some (or a lot?), it must be a nightmare. Put yourself in their shoes; not doing something which feels right and normal just because the Bible says so. That takes courage and very, very strong belief. I don’t think I could have done that had I not been the way I am
I am not defending anything in the context of this religion. The question was about Civil rights; and Civil rights questions are only ever decided upon by Society and not religions; well, not since the dark ages
If society as a whole is in favour of same-gender marriages then same-gender marriages will be enacted in law; if society feels that it is wrong, then the Bill will never become an Act. Atleast, this is how things happen in the United Kingdom
I am not in favour of imposing my Catholic belief (a minority belief) on to the majority. I can’t say about America and the Americans but in Europe, it is a widely held belief that Catholics and other religious zealots are the ones who require psychiatric treatment and not the gays or anyone else. Afterall, look at this from an Atheist’s point of view; the Catholics are walking around with a book which they say is the word of God and all that is written in it should be law. When the Atheist asks to meet this God so he/she can question him, we turn around and say that God is all around us; at this point, the Atheist takes three steps back and whilst staring at the Catholic in complete horror, takes out his cellphone and dials 999. Do you get the picture?
You cannot turn the clock back 2,000 years; accept it as it is. Does not mean that you have to accept that same-sex marriage is a marriage; however if 50%+ of the population accept this then you are a minority; and in the United Kingdom, Catholics form less than 6% of the population and the ones who actually take the religion seriously, are less than the 6%. Coincidentally, the gays form 6% of the population too and they, as far as I know, take their ‘gayness’ quite seriously. But that still leaves 88% who don’t have an agenda, either way. The decision will not be made by the gays or the Catholics (both combined together are a minority) but by the 88% who are the majority
I can only surmise the result from how I see my friends treating me; in the best case scenario, they think that I will grow out of this (Catholicism) just as a child grows out of childish behaviour; at worst, they think that I am loosing touch with reality and that some psychiatric treatment is in order. Think about it from their point of view. Who they knew as an intelligent and educated woman is know talking about invisible beings who have sent her messages written in a book. I know this, because they are concerned about me and share their concerns behind my back with my partner
I cannot ‘win’ this ‘fight’ with them; all I can do is to swallow my pride and continue in what I believe is right for me. I think that if I do this, then in time, they might start respecting me and taking me seriously again; but if I start wailing and throwing my arms around and evangelising then I fear that one day I might find myself sectioned in a mental institution
In conclusion, if asked, I will not vote on this issue; I am neither for it nor against it. But I am against Civil Partnerships (same-gender marriages/legal arrangements/contracts/whatever) being ‘blessed’ in the Catholic Church
BTW, my partner is not just my friend; although she is my best friend too. But she is far more than that; she is my partner, we are exclusively for each other, we love each other and we will spend the remainder of our lives together. Oh, and under no circumstances are we ashamed of any of that. The fact that we don’t shout across the roof-tops about ourselves is because, for one thing, this is a private matter and for another, it might cause hurt to some people. However, we don’t see that same courtesy being extended to us
At Mass today, the priest talked about the purpose of Lent; something which made a lot of sense to me was that Lent is also a time when we should reflect on our sins and how we can improve ourselves; too many people are busy improving others rather than themselves
- Status