|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: CofE versus Rome on homosexuality
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I think the forced withdrawal of Catholic adoption agencies from the British scene was a bit of a wake-up call for Catholics in Britain.
I'm not familiar with the British example, but if it was "enforced" in a similar manner to what happened in the Washington, DC area a few years back it was probably more a function of the Catholic Church not wanting to provide a state-managed public service a non-discriminatory manner.
Of course, the Church was fairly haphazard in their theological screening process. Perhaps the situation was different in Britain, but in the States Catholic adoption agencies were perfectly willing to abide by legal restrictions forcing them to adopt childen to Jews, Muslims, or any other violators of Catholic ideology other than homosexual couples. I never heard a decent explanation for this particular carve out.
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, how much has the legalization of contraceptives (even for married Catholic couples!) or remarriage after divorce affected "the rights of Catholics to carry on teaching and practising their own faith"?
This is what the whole Obamacare NHS mandate brouhaha is all about. The government forcing the Church to violate its own teachings. So yes, it's gone beyond just legalizing contraception to affecting the rights of Catholics to carry on teaching and preaching their own faith.
Actually the Church itself has an exemption to the health care mandate. The "brouhaha" was over whether any employer who's an adherent of the faith can get a similar exemption, even if their corporation is non-religious. In other words, nuns still have to buy their contraception out of pocket, but if you work for Campbell's Soup Company your employer doesn't get to pick-and-choose which health services are available to you.
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
Catholics see a present where the government wants to force the Church to provide contraceptives so they worry about a future where the government will force it to marry same-sex couples. It ain't far fetched.
Yes, I imagaine that seeing things in the present that don't exist would also make you predict future events that are highly unlikely.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, how much has the legalization of contraceptives (even for married Catholic couples!) or remarriage after divorce affected "the rights of Catholics to carry on teaching and practising their own faith"?
This is what the whole Obamacare NHS mandate brouhaha is all about. The government forcing the Church to violate its own teachings. So yes, it's gone beyond just legalizing contraception to affecting the rights of Catholics to carry on teaching and preaching their own faith.
Catholics see a present where the government wants to force the Church to provide contraceptives so they worry about a future where the government will force it to marry same-sex couples. It ain't far fetched.
Actually this had nothing to do with Obamacare. It was a ruling by the EEO Commission dated in December of 2000. The Catholic Bishops, surprisingly, didn't have anything to say about the ruling then, but when this existing law was incorporated into the Affordable Healthcare Act, they blew up.
But this only covers religious institutions that serve the public. If a Jewish or Lutheran doctor working at a Catholic hospital that services the community wants contraception, she should get this as part of her insurance. Nuns, priests and parish administrators aren't subject to this ruling because they don't serve the public.
Time after time, the best people on this thread have done is offer apples to oranges comparisons. None of these examples have anything to with whether churches will be forced to marry gay couples if gay marriage is legalized. None. Every single example so far has involved church affiliated institutions that serve and employ people of different faiths. The Catholic Church has never married Jewish, atheist or Muslim couples. It's not the same.
It's been long established law in both the UK and US that churches that provide services to the general public can't discriminate. It's also long established law (Affirmed in Mormon Church vs. Amos in 1987 and again in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C.) in 2011 that churches are exempt from anti-discrimination laws when it comes to carrying out religious duties (including marriage) for church members.
I've asked this several times but it seems to get dodged: If the fear is that once gay marriage is passed the State will bar churches from discriminating against gay couples, why isn't there an already existing fear that, even without gay marriage, the State may force churches to ordain women, members of other religions or atheists to the priesthood or episcopate against their doctrines because of already existing anti-discrimination law on the basis of gender or religion?
What difference will gay marriage make?
Can anyone point to a single example of the State forcing churches to marry gay couples against their doctrine in any state or country where gay marriage is legal? Even one instance?
[ 26. December 2012, 17:33: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Can anyone point to a single example of the State forcing churches to marry gay couples against their doctrine in any state or country where gay marriage is legal? Even one instance?
None in NZ. Lots of scaremongering about it at the time of the civil union bill.
And honestly, can you imagine a wedding ceremony where the celebrant has had to be coerced? Not a pretty thought, and I don't think (I hope) any of us queers would sign up for it.
The bigger problem was for priests and ministers who wanted to be able to celebrate civil unions. The list of celebrants is printed in the NZ Gazette, so if you applied and were accepted, you couldn't hide it. This led to some pretty nasty stuff for those brave enough to sign up against the wishes of their respective churches.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... But you do seem to think that people who have such a religious conviction should just shut up about it in general. ...
Please. The argument is not about beliefs or expressions thereof; it is about a sub-group of citizens using government to impose religious beliefs on everyone else. I have no objection to expressing religious convictions; I do object to government imposing that conviction on those who believe otherwise.
And I too am bored with the apples and oranges on the slippery slope. In Canada, churches that provide non-religious services to the public may not discriminate. They can't refuse to rent the hall to the lesbian couple for the reception, but they are completely within their rights to refuse to perform the ceremony.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Can anyone point to a single example of the State forcing churches to marry gay couples against their doctrine in any state or country where gay marriage is legal? Even one instance?
The only examples I can think of where an officiant has been disciplined by the state for not performing a same-sex marriage are situations where the officiant is an agent of the state (e.g. a justice of the peace, clerk of the court, or similar) refusing to do their job. I can't think of a single example where a purely religious officiant has run afoul of the law on these grounds.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
feast of stephen
Shipmate
# 8885
|
Posted
People are switched off by any organisation that feels it has the right to continually and publicly pass judgement on the conduct of others regarding matters of sexuality. It tells us everything we need to know about the psychology of the "judges" and nothing useful, logical or pertinent to the way people live their lives in the 21st century.
Posts: 85 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Can anyone point to a single example of the State forcing churches to marry gay couples against their doctrine in any state or country where gay marriage is legal? Even one instance?
The only examples I can think of where an officiant has been disciplined by the state for not performing a same-sex marriage are situations where the officiant is an agent of the state (e.g. a justice of the peace, clerk of the court, or similar) refusing to do their job. I can't think of a single example where a purely religious officiant has run afoul of the law on these grounds.
When it comes to officiating at a marriage, either religious or secular, no one has an unrestricted right to their personal conscience.
I knew that in the last few years, there was whining from some on the right that marriage commissioners were "forced" to perform same-sex marriages.
But civil marriage commissioners, like any other public official, are hired to perform their duty, irrespective of any personal opinion they might hold on the merit of the law.
Religious officials are understood as acting on behalf of their individual religious communities. They also don't have a right to personal conscience. If a Roman Catholic priest performs a same-sex wedding, he will be sacked by his bishop and probably defrocked. So the Roman Church doesn't believe in personal conscience for its clergy: it disciplines its members all the time.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The post of mine you quoted above was in response to one asserting that it was a simple matter of fact and public record that the pope - and, by implication, anyone who thought marriage was for one man and one woman only - was a homophobe.
I can see that you might have taken my post that way. I accept that the fault was mine for being unclear. However I have since disavowed such an implication, so please do not now suggest that this is what I was saying.
quote:
That sort of aggresive assertion is not really conducive to open and balanced debate, I find.
Well, I'm not really trying to convince. I've done that. We've had the argument already and my side won it hands down. There's never been an anti-gay-marriage post on the Ship, or, I suspect, anywhere at all, giving any reasons with any merit whatever. Your side literally has nothing of value to say. The people who are going to be convinced already are.
Basically, I'm in pretty much the same place on this one as I am with racism, on or off line. You don't say that shit in my presence and have it go unchallenged. It ought to be socially unacceptable to be a homophobe. I'm sorry that often it isn't – but in my tiny corner of the world, it damned well will be.
Is it fair to call the other side homophobes? Well, I'm a lawyer. When I think of prejudices like homophobia, I think primarily in terms of discrimination – treating people less favourably and allowing them fewer rights – rather than in terms of personally held opinion. That's where I'm coming from when I try to use the word 'homophobe' in a useful and meaningful way.
To me someone who wants to deny equality of treatment or equality of rights to [group X] is a [whatever the usual word is for discrimination against group X]-ist . If its race, they're a racist; sex, they're a sexist; denomination, they're a sectarian; same-sex orientation, they're a homophobe.
I don't think that is the only possible definition of 'homophobe', but it is a common and a meaningful one. It is certainly more useful that Enoch's insistence on a subjective feeling of irrational fear as the defining criterion. Who can say to what extent the C4M's assertions about gay marriage leading to moral collapse, religious persecution, and straight people forgetting how babies are made are genuinely the product of irrational fear, and how much they are just lying hateful scumbags. But what difference does it make? They are so fucking obviously people it is appropriate to describe as homophobes, who cares?
quote:
On your second point, what is someone who genuinely and on the basis of their study the scriptures, tradition and human nature concludes that the only sexual activity sanctioned by God is that between a husband and a wife to do? Just shut up? Just play along? Be quietly ashamed of their "homophobia" and learn not to trust thier own conscience?
I'm not calling those people homophobes. I almost am one of them – that's the only sort of sexual activity I would definitely assert is sanctioned by God, I just don't claim that the only sort I'm sure of is the only sort there is.
I'm calling people homophobes when they want to ban gay people form exercising the same legal rights that straight people have. Discrimination. Against homosexuals. Homophobia. Tautologously so. What's the objection – that homophobia's not a nice word? Good. I don't want to use nice words for repulsive political positions.
quote:
If it becomes a matter of definition on these boards that anyone opposed to changes to mariages laws and theology is a homophobe
You need to separate the two, FFS! They are different. Your theology is optional to me. It doesn't affect me if you think the only valid marriage is one sealed with a sacred oath on Thor's holy cock-ring. You can try to persuade me of it if you like, and maybe you will or maybe you won't, but I'm free to live my life differently until you do. Laws aren't optional. Restrict the law on who can marry and you restrict people's rights.
That's a really crucial distinction that you don't seem to grasp: having an opinion isn't an infringement of other people's rights. Banning them from doing something that everyone else can do most certainly is.
Supporting laws against gay marriage is discrimatory (obviously) and the word for anti-gay discrimination is homophobia. I'm not applying that word to private views on sexual ethics, but to support for legal discrimination. Please tell me that you can see the difference.
quote:
Why be more tolerant of anti-gay marriage opinions than anti-miscegeny opinions?
I'm not. I don't much care whether or not you (generic you) personally feel that you ought not to marry outside your own race or within your own gender. I resent very much you saying that people who want to should not have the right to marry the person of their choice.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I think the forced withdrawal of Catholic adoption agencies from the British scene was a bit of a wake-up call for Catholics in Britain.
I really wish you'd stop calling it 'forced'. It was their choice.
Unless you think people leaving Facebook or Instagram when the rules change are similarly 'forced' and somehow martyrs to the cause of a free internet.
Because in my opinion, people loudly and dramatically declaring "I was forced to close my account" (or adoption agency) and "I had no option but to go" are not being terribly accurate.
[ 26. December 2012, 22:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Two – my nearest dictionary (the New Oxford) uses “aversion” rather than fear or hatred. And the pope certainly displays that. By requiring actual discrimination before I call someone a homophobe, I'm being rather more generous than the strict dictionary definition.
The Oxford dictionary online defines: "Homophobia - an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people." First, there is no indication that this can be fairly said about Joseph Ratzinger. Second, moderate and rational opposition to homosexuality, which remains charitable to homosexual people, exists. If you apply the label "homophobia" to that indiscriminately, then you have de facto declared anything other than full acceptance of homosexuality as being utterly beyond the pale. Well then, what precisely would be the point of talking to you?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If someone said that women shouldn't be allowed to drive cars, they could be called sexist without depriving the word of meaning. If someone said that Jews shouldn't be allowed to vote, they could be called anti-semitic without depriving the word of meaning. If someone says gays shouldn't be allowed to marry ...
... then he suggests that culture and government should continue to acknowledge basic biological and psychological realities, in the same manner as essentially all cultures and governments have done everywhere and at all times, with the very recent exception of some Western cultures and governments. Your comparison to sexism and anti-semitism merely adds heat but no light.
If you really think that I am a homophobe for fully supporting the Roman Catholic position on homosexuality and gay marriage, then I think that you are being blinded by ideology to the point of insanity. Personally, I do not think that it is particularly helpful if you shout "homophobe" at me while I shout "madman" at you, but if you want to go down that road then I will unhappily oblige.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
There's a huge difference between disagreeing with Eliab, and actively campaigning for legal discrimination. It's people who do the latter that I call homophobes. Because that's what they are.
It would be very convenient for you if all who disagreed with you would decide to keep this entirely private and would leave the political and social sphere entirely to you and your allies. But it is entirely unreasonable to expect this to happen. Furthermore, if you immediately start slinging abusive labels about, then you will diminish the chances for political and social compromises that actually often can be achieved in spite of a lack of agreement on principles.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If you don't like the word, I'm glad, because I think discrimination against minorities is an ugly, shameful and wicked thing, and if “homophobe” conveys that then it saves me the trouble of having to look for another word to express the full measure of my contempt.
What precisely do you hope to achieve with this display of passionate fervour? Understand that to the opposing side this is basically the same as saying "Admit that 2+2=5, or I will hate you!" We simply do not believe that any injustice is being done in rejecting an official endorsement of "same-sex marriage". We simply do not believe that any discrimination is happening there, or at least not any discrimination that is other than the "water is wet, the desert is dry" kind.
Mind you, that homosexuals have been and probably are being mistreated is not being denied. Or at least that is not being denied by me, or for that matter the RCC. But there is only one way to take a shortcut through this disagreement on principle, and that is by force. If this is not what you seek, then you should tone down your rhetoric. It is not helping.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If someone said that women shouldn't be allowed to drive cars, they could be called sexist without depriving the word of meaning. If someone said that Jews shouldn't be allowed to vote, they could be called anti-semitic without depriving the word of meaning. If someone says gays shouldn't be allowed to marry ...
... then he suggests that culture and government should continue to acknowledge basic biological and psychological realities, in the same manner as essentially all cultures and governments have done everywhere and at all times, with the very recent exception of some Western cultures and governments. Your comparison to sexism and anti-semitism merely adds heat but no light.
Hold on a sec! Isn't the argument against women driving (or voting, or working outside the home, or . . . ) essentially "that culture and government should continue to acknowledge basic biological and psychological realities, in the same manner as essentially all cultures and governments have done everywhere and at all times, with the very recent exception of some Western cultures and governments"? I'm not seeing a rhetorical difference in the argument being advanced.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
We simply do not believe that any injustice is being done in rejecting an official endorsement of "same-sex marriage". We simply do not believe that any discrimination is happening there, or at least not any discrimination that is other than the "water is wet, the desert is dry" kind.
Mind you, that homosexuals have been and probably are being mistreated is not being denied. Or at least that is not being denied by me, or for that matter the RCC.
But you deny that maintaining a legal double standard for same-sex couples is a form of mistreatment. I'm not sure that denying others full equality under the law is an "agree to disagree" kind of situation. You can walk away from that disagreement with the full protection of the law. Those you disparage cannot.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
What kind of compromise would you propose, IngoB?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Oxford dictionary online defines: "Homophobia - an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people." First, there is no indication that this can be fairly said about Joseph Ratzinger.
Really? If I was a dictionary editor looking to illustrate that definition with an example, something like this:
quote:
“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws”
would suffice. Someone who describes giving even civil partnership rights to gays as “gravely unjust” is averse, extreme and irrational. Unjust! The pope thinks that treating gay people with a modicum of fairness is unfair. That's irrational.
And yes, I know you're going to explain that to the pope “unjust” includes “not in accordance with the natural law” or some such. Whatever. There's still no injustice in giving legal recognition to consenual relationships.
But I'm getting side-tracked. That definition sets the bar too low for me, and is too subjective to be very useful. I'm not prepared to call the pope a homophobe merely because of his aversion to homosexuality. Only when he crosses the line and actively promotes discrimination in the civil law would I do that.
quote:
Second, moderate and rational opposition to homosexuality, which remains charitable to homosexual people, exists.
If you apply the label "homophobia" to that indiscriminately, then you have de facto declared anything other than full acceptance of homosexuality as being utterly beyond the pale.
Did you read my last post? I'm not condemning anyone for their sexual ethics. I'm not asking anyone to 'accept' homosexuality. I don't meet that test. I'm a Christian, I respect Scripture and tradition, and I cannot honestly say that I think homosexual activity is permitted to Christians – I can see merit in the revisionist arguments, but I don't claim to know that they are right, and I'm certainly not prepared to tell celibate gay Christians that they are mistaken.
I'm condemning discrimination against homosexuals. I'm condemning attempts to deny them the same legal rights that I have. That's what I find odious, not opinions on sexual ethics.
quote:
... then he suggests that culture and government should continue to acknowledge basic biological and psychological realities, in the same manner as essentially all cultures and governments have done everywhere and at all times, with the very recent exception of some Western cultures and governments.
I don't understand that. The relevant biological and psychological data for considering what rights to grant a gay couple would be their own biological and psychological data. Not mine. And as soon as we acknowledge that data, we find that gay people can and do fall in love like the rest of us to, desire commitment like the rest of us, share households like the rest of us, want to bring up children like the rest of us, screw things up and need protection when relationships fail like the rest of us, and are served by laws granting rights in the same way as the rest of us. The anti-gay-marriage side is the one that's deaf and blind to reality.
quote:
If you really think that I am a homophobe for fully supporting the Roman Catholic position on homosexuality and gay marriage, then I think that you are being blinded by ideology to the point of insanity. Personally, I do not think that it is particularly helpful if you shout "homophobe" at me while I shout "madman" at you, but if you want to go down that road then I will unhappily oblige.
I've only used the word homophobe against a public figure, specific arguments and a political position in general, not against any individual shipmate. I don't want to make personal attacks here.
But I said earlier on the thread that I had considered and rejected 'unthinking ignorance' and 'dumb tribal loyalty' as defences available to the pope against the charge of homophobia. I do think that they are still available to Catholic posters here, should you wish to avail yourselves of either.
For you, I'll add “I enjoy the challenge of defending the stupidest things about the institution I'm committed to” as a plausible defence, if you like. I still disapprove of you engaging in the cause of injustice, but it'll save me from thinking you personally a homophobe.
quote:
It would be very convenient for you if all who disagreed with you would decide to keep this entirely private and would leave the political and social sphere entirely to you and your allies. But it is entirely unreasonable to expect this to happen. Furthermore, if you immediately start slinging abusive labels about, then you will diminish the chances for political and social compromises that actually often can be achieved in spite of a lack of agreement on principles.
Not really. It's what we do with racism. We used to argue about racism. We don't bother to do that now. The anti-racists won the argument, because the racists had no serious argument to make, and now everyone of goodwill knows it. All the “biological and psychological realities” of the racists melted away like diarrhoea in the rain, when we stopped taking it seriously.
Same here. At least on the Ship, we've been over this enough times to know that your side has no decent arguments. It's all diarrhoea. We've gone past the point where the view that gay people shouldn't have the same civil rights as straights needs to be treated with any respect as an argument. We're now at the stage where we try to get your lot to change your trousers. Some people on my side are still trying to do that politely. I'm telling you that your shit stinks.
quote:
What precisely do you hope to achieve with this display of passionate fervour?
I'm trying to make the expression of homophobia socially unacceptable. I thought I'd said that already to Chesterbelloc.
Why the passion? Yes, I'll admit that it isn't all pious indignation against injustice (though I hope it's mostly that). It's also because this shit is being said in my name. We've had fucking homophobic petitions circulated at my church against gay rights. My church's official statement on the subject is a hideous, badly argued, runny turd of a document and people outside the church, when they hear that I'm a Christian, think that I'm likely to be anti-gay.
Your side makes me look bad. I'm still sinful enough to resent that.
quote:
We simply do not believe that any discrimination is happening there, or at least not any discrimination that is other than the "water is wet, the desert is dry" kind.
I was free to marry the person of my choice. My gay friends aren't. Some of them want to. They aren't currently allowed to, even though giving them the same rights as me would harm no one. That's unjust discrimination.
quote:
But there is only one way to take a shortcut through this disagreement on principle, and that is by force. If this is not what you seek, then you should tone down your rhetoric. It is not helping.
IngoB, this has been a live debate on the Ship for well over a year, and your side has yet to make a good point. There has never been an argument made against civil marriage equality here which is not either stupid, or odious, or theocratic. My side have had the disagreement and we won, and we know it.
The proof is on this thread. On any other issue at all being debated on the Ship, someone who posted something this moronically insensitive:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Besides, in the strict verbal sense, gay people do have the same rights as straight people do, which is to marry someone of the opposite sex. Straight people can't marry someone of the same sex, either, whether for sexual, immigration or inheritance tax reasons.
or which was so preposterously irrelevant and paranoid as this:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
The government forcing the Church to violate its own teachings. So yes, it's gone beyond just legalizing contraception to affecting the rights of Catholics to carry on teaching and preaching their own faith.
Catholics see a present where the government wants to force the Church to provide contraceptives so they worry about a future where the government will force it to marry same-sex couples. It ain't far fetched.
or as stubbornly point-missing as:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The post of mine you quoted above was in response to one asserting that it was a simple matter of fact and public record that the pope - and, by implication, anyone who thought marriage was for one man and one woman only - was a homophobe. That sort of aggresive assertion is not really conducive to open and balanced debate, I find.
[...]
If it becomes a matter of definition on these boards that anyone opposed to changes to mariages laws and theology is a homophobe, then you might as well campaign for the expression of such opinions to be classed as jerkism and have done with it. That would at least be consistent.
would be picked up on it by their own side. Some sensible voice would say “No, the better argument is ...”
But not here. Because you've got no better argument. There is no good argument against equality. I've stopped pretending that your side might come up with one.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
2. The address does not seem to refer to gay marriage. Indeed, anyone not hypersensitised to that issue already, would hear it as an attack on those feminists who say that there is no difference between men and women except for their physical genitalia.
Tbh I have no idea what the Holy Father is trying to say in those paragraphs. The argument seems to go "Gender is a social construct" > ? > "Family breakdown".
I can't see what the "?" is supposed to be. Divorce? But that happens because people don't want to make irrevocable commitments; that's nothing to do with gender. Child neglect? But a parent's duties to their children are a function of their role as parents, not of gender. Transgenderism? But transgenderism is only coherent if gender is assumed to be something intrinsic, something you can't easily choose, and also something more than mere genitalia. Homosexuality? But again, people who believe in gay rights generally agree you can't choose to be homosexual. Contraception? But if denying your ability to procreate is a denial of your gender, then celibate religious orders deny their gender all the time.
If the Holy Father can't clearly express his thought, it's not surprising if the hacks see "family" and think "oh, he's a conservative, defending the family is usually code for restricting gay rights", and publish accordingly.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not seeing a rhetorical difference in the argument being advanced.
Indeed, I did not advance an argument there. I countered unsavory rhetoric with a simple summary. Because I was not arguing for a traditional view of marriage, but against Eliab burning all bridges.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
But you deny that maintaining a legal double standard for same-sex couples is a form of mistreatment.
I disagree that there is a double standard. Rather, there is a standard, and as standards do, it allows certain people and rejects others.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What kind of compromise would you propose, IngoB?
I would suggest that the state gets out of the marriage business altogether and instead sorts out what right, benefits and privileges, but also duties and responsibilities, it wishes to attach to long-lasting relationships involving adult "significant other(s)" on one hand, and the generation and raising of children on the other hand. Marriage as understood by the RCC will be one way of accessing these provisions. But only in the sense that such a heterosexual couple will likely fill out the relevant forms together. Likewise, if some private person wants to celebrate a "gay marriage" for some homosexual couple, then they can do so. There is no law against private celebrations, as long as you keep the noise down. As far as the state is concerned, this will only become relevant when this homosexual couple fills out the relevant forms.
I would suggest that the fight about a historically grown package deal "marriage" from the state is clouding the issue. Let's move marriage back where it belongs, into the private and religious sphere. Obviously, it will take some time to rewrite laws. Hence as a transient deal I support "civil unions" of gay people. But this should not be a first step towards enforcing a new dogma of marriage by state control, as it now is happening in the UK. Rather it should be a first step in the state withdrawing from a contentious issue, since the overwhelming social consensus that supported its previous "one size fits all" approach has disappeared.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Someone who describes giving even civil partnership rights to gays as “gravely unjust” is averse, extreme and irrational. Unjust! The pope thinks that treating gay people with a modicum of fairness is unfair. That's irrational.
First, I prefer quotes from the pope, and not just soundbites but substantial quotes that provide sufficient context. I trust "executive summaries" of "what the pope said" as far as I can spit... Second, as far as distributive justice goes, it is undoubtedly true that a relationship between homosexuals cannot expect the same support from the state as a heterosexual relationship, since it cannot perform the same function for the common good - for which the state signs responsible. Homosexual people cannot have children (with each other).
Since however the social consensus that supported marriage as being ordered to procreation has largely disappeared, even among heterosexuals, it is indeed time to re-align state support. Not in the sense that the state should be concerned with something other than the generation, raising and supporting of children into adulthood. This must remain the primary concern as far as the common good is concerned. But in the sense that such support must now become explicit, since the clear association with (heterosexual) marriage has disappeared.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The relevant biological and psychological data for considering what rights to grant a gay couple would be their own biological and psychological data.
Indeed. It is undeniable that gay couples are biologically incapable of procreating. It is undeniable that there are biological and psychological differences between men and women, and that in a gay relationship these do not meet (whether to complement each other or do battle with each other). There is absolutely no question that homosexual relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships. They cannot be, that is basically an insane claim driven by ideology. There is a question whether the state has any business in recognizing these undeniable differences though. Again, it is undeniable that the state has interest in procreation, since quite literally that concerns the very existence of the common good it is supposed to protect.
The only remaining issue is whether the state should assume a necessary connection between relationships and procreation. And it is there, and only there, that supporters of "gay marriage" have anything resembling a case. It is, of course, the pill which has been the game changer on this. Hence my suggestion that the state should get out of the marriage business and into direct support for procreation (and raising/supporting children!). And yes, some provisions relating to inheritance and authority in medical emergencies etc. also make sense. But these are in my opinion best handled separately and specifically (for example, who says that I want to privilege the same people with regards to speaking for me in a medical emergency and inheriting my possessions after my death, respectively?).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
IngoB: quote:
We simply do not believe that any injustice is being done in rejecting an official endorsement of "same-sex marriage". We simply do not believe that any discrimination is happening there
An unmarried heterosexual is free to marry the unmarried person they love. An unmarried homosexual is not. How is that not discrimination? quote:
There is absolutely no question that homosexual relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships. They cannot be
In what way are homosexual relationships different from heterosexual? Here you lose me completely.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
In what way are homosexual relationships different from heterosexual? Here you lose me completely.
You are kidding are you not? Does the word "procreation" help? I suspect IngoB would have expected you to have understood that he (and I) would understand that it be an inherent part of heterosexual marriage.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Ummmm... Since when does procreation have anything to do with civil marriage?
The State allows infertile and post-menopausal people (who obviously can't procreate) to get married. Even people who have had vasectomy or hysterectomy can get married. No one has to sign any pledge that they want to have children.
If procreation was an "inherent" part of marriage, the RCC should be speaking out against those who get married who can't/won't procreate.
Yet *crickets*
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Does the RCC marry straight people who cannot be expected to procreate? Infertile people, old people...Oh right, I forgot the miracle clause. Kinda like that other Claus, if you believe hard enough....
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Surely if God can perform a miracle that allows someone with deformed or removed sex organs, or is post-menopausal, to conceive and give birth to a child, God could do the same with a lesbian or even gay male couple. It's no less believable than virgins conceiving, bringing dead people back to life or turning water into wine.
Invoking miracles is a weak defence. It seems to be acknowledging that God can't perform certain types of miracles.
[ 27. December 2012, 13:32: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Ummmm... Since when does procreation have anything to do with civil marriage?
In England there is no such a thing as civil marriage: there is simply marriage - which may be contracted as part of a civil ceremony or in a religious ceremony using the legally approved form of words before someone who is authorised. The legislation currently being trailed purports to create the state of civil marriage.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Ummmm... Since when does procreation have anything to do with civil marriage?
In England there is no such a thing as civil marriage: there is simply marriage - which may be contracted as part of a civil ceremony or in a religious ceremony using the legally approved form of words before someone who is authorised. The legislation currently being trailed purports to create the state of civil marriage.
I know that. Can you quote the part of the civil marriage law that requires couples to demonstrate an intent to procreate and provide the link? Thanks in advance.
[ 27. December 2012, 14:38: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
In what way are homosexual relationships different from heterosexual? Here you lose me completely.
You are kidding are you not? Does the word "procreation" help? I suspect IngoB would have expected you to have understood that he (and I) would understand that it be an inherent part of heterosexual marriage.
I'm not sure that I would class reproduction as being an inherent part of marriage, but that's a separate issue. IngoB was talking about relationships, a category much wider than marriage, and I can't see that friendship or falling in love are different for heterosexuals.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Ummmm... Since when does procreation have anything to do with civil marriage?
In England there is no such a thing as civil marriage: there is simply marriage - which may be contracted as part of a civil ceremony or in a religious ceremony using the legally approved form of words before someone who is authorised. The legislation currently being trailed purports to create the state of civil marriage.
There must be some state of civil marriage in existence in the UK. The State must provide a license (and must have a set of requirements for eligibility), register the action, authorize those who may perform a ceremony and protect the couple's assets through binding law. So a defacto state of civil marriage does exist, apart from religious institutions. Couples who belong to no religion can get married without any religious involvement. So can you show me where an intent to procreate is a inherent part of any of this? Must couples in the UK sign a declaration of an intent to procreate to receive a licence? If not, what argument can one have that procreation is inherent?
[ 27. December 2012, 14:47: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
(Heterosexual) marriage is ordered to procreation, it is not identical with procreation. It is the personal and social framework for procreation, whether it in fact results in offspring or not. Homosexual "marriage" is not ordered to procreation. It is not a personal and social framework for procreation, because it never results in offspring.
Unfortunately, technological progress and philosophical / theological confusion requires even more specificity. It is not merely procreation as "generation of children" that we are talking about here. Rather, it is the entire psychosomatic process of a man and a woman coming together in the "union of one flesh", i.e., vaginal intercourse, that naturally can (but doesn't all the time) result in offspring. That is what marriage is ordered to. And that's why an infertile heterosexual couple can be married, because they can still have this particular sexual union (even if with little hope that there will be offspring), whereas an impotent heterosexual couple cannot be married (in the RCC), because they cannot have it (even if they nowadays can perhaps use technology to have offspring). However, if a heterosexual couple has frequent vaginal intercourse, but from the outset intends to remove all possibility of offspring by the systematic use of contraception, then this is a reason for declaring their marriage null. This is different from an infertile couple, unless it is precisely the infertility that makes the partner attractive. Etc. So it is not just the "mechanics" or the "result", but as I've said, it's the entire psychosomatic process, including both intentions and actions.
Marriage contains personally and socially the entire complex that nature/God has intended for procreation. This cannot possibly be taken part in by a homosexual couple. Hence they cannot possibly be married, whatever other goods their relationship may bring. Probably one day the technology will exist that allows for example two women to literally have a child together (by fusing their DNA artificially). Perhaps then we need to have a discussion whether and to what degree the state should support such female-female procreation. But even then these two women cannot be married.
Of course, popular language usage may well call other things "marriage" and probably that is the case already. But words are not realities. And it is often the case that some group employs the same word in a much more specific, technical sense. The most likely scenario now is that the term "marriage" eventually will be applied to any kind of emotional and sexual relationship for which some intention exists that it will endure. Very well, but this will not change in the slightest what the RCC considers morally licit and it is also unlikely to change the language used in the RCC. "Marriage" will probably retain its status as technical term for a specific kind of relationship which the RCC endorses.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Rather, it is the entire psychosomatic process of a man and a woman coming together in the "union of one flesh", i.e., vaginal intercourse, that naturally can (but doesn't all the time) result in offspring. That is what marriage is ordered to. ...
Yeesh, that's an awful lot of flashy verbiage to state that the fundamental requirement of (Catholic) marriage is the ability to stick Tab A into Slot B. Two tabs or two slots won't do. Neither do tabs that don't work or slots that are blocked. And God said, "It is not good for the man to not have a slot for his tab."
Thus, we reach the end point, where we see that arguments against equal marriage are actually arguments for traditional gender roles in heterosexual marriage. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It seems to boil down to semantics, doesn't it? Different groups of people can define the word 'marriage' in different ways, and I suppose the state defines it in its own way.
But for the state, marriage is a social construct, with various parameters, and these parameters are not fixed, but have to be determined legally by the state.
Thus, the idea of a non-religious marriage was determined to be valid at some point in the 19th century, I suppose. And then the idea of divorced people being remarried was considerably extended.
Historically, one of the parameters for marriage in the Western world has been 'opposite sex', but this is being changed now. Quelle horreur.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I understand how Catholics conceive of marriage. I don't understand why the State, which serves a pluralistic society, must mirror that. The State allows the marriage of non-Catholics. The State allows an infinite number of divorces and remarriages. The State allows the infertile and post-menopausal to marry. All of this is at odds with the Catholic conception of marriage.
Marriage, outside of the religious realm, is nothing more than a subset of contract law. From a civic point of view, I don't see why the State can't change aspects of contract law as society changes. It always has up until now.
In a democratic society, the State is also supposed to serve the will of its constituents. According to the latest poll 60% of Britons (and 77% of those under 25) approve of gay marriage.
The move toward reform is being led by the right-of-center Tory party. Eventually they will be voted out of power and Labour, where this has even greater support will be back in power. It's going to change eventually.
[ 27. December 2012, 16:31: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But sir, you have introduced the sheer undiluted horror of (I can hardly write the word)relativism! If the state can treat marriage as contract law, then who knows what might ensue in the future? Am I to be allowed to marry my television? Or my mother-in-law?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What kind of compromise would you propose, IngoB?
We have now a perfectly good compromise in the UK which ought to satisfy everybody including David Cameron and Eliab, but doesn't seem to, for abstract philosophical reasons I can neither understand nor sympathise with.
Men and women can marry each other. They always have been able to.
People of the same sex can now enter into a civil partnership. It has all the same legal consequences as marriage except for three,
1. It isn't actually called marriage. It's called civil partnership.
2. The parties are not respectively husband and wife.
3. Divorce for any of the possible comparables to adultery has to be for unreasonable conduct.
2 and 3 are unavoidable consequences of there not being tab A and slot B, i.e. p+p or v+v, not p in v.
If we are talking about compromises, I can't see why campaigners must change 1. Civil partnership gives everything anyone needs. So I can only conclude that it is driven by a determination to rub the noses of those who don't agree with them in some sort of metaphorical cow-dung, whether just because they are old fashioned or whether because they hold that the description of creation means something.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
If there is no essential difference between civil partnership and marriage then why would anyone oppose getting rid of a parallel set of definitions and wordage and have one for efficiency and consistency's stake. You just admitted it's just words, right?
From our perspective, there is no such thing as separate but equal, but if your argument is that the only difference lies in wordage, than why does it matter to you so much?
[ 27. December 2012, 16:45: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, separate but equal is a hideous doctrine, which usually means that the segregated are not equal by the fact of their segregation.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
People of the same sex can now enter into a civil partnership. It has all the same legal consequences as marriage except for three,
1. It isn't actually called marriage. It's called civil partnership.
...
If we are talking about compromises, I can't see why campaigners must change 1. Civil partnership gives everything anyone needs. So I can only conclude that it is driven by a determination to rub the noses of those who don't agree with them in some sort of metaphorical cow-dung, whether just because they are old fashioned or whether because they hold that the description of creation means something.
They're not trying to rub your nose in anything. What they want is exactly what straight couples get under the law, including the same word for their legally-contracted committed relationships. So yeah, I guess it's them being old-fashioned.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
They're not trying to rub your nose in anything. What they want is exactly what straight couples get under the law, including the same word for their legally-contracted committed relationships. So yeah, I guess it's them being old-fashioned.
If that's what marriage was in English Law then that'd be one thing but it isn't simply a "legally-contracted committed relationship". If it were, then, apart from anything else, we'd not have to have this double standard about consummation and adultery. Homosexuals have access to "legally-contracted committed relationships": they are called civil partnerships. Why the proponents of this measure can't admit that what they are doing is redefining marriage per se is beyond me.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
So Civil Partnership aren't equal. It's not the same.
quote:
Why the proponents of this measure can't admit that what they are doing is redefining marriage per se is beyond me.
I don't know what you mean by "redefining" marriage. Everyone admits and acknowledges that changing the law will make marriage gender neutral. But marriage will continue to provide the same set of responsibilities and obligations as before. It will provide the same social and legal stability to raise children as before. In that respect it hasn't been redefined at all.
I don't know what they "can't" admit. Seems like a bit of projection here.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So Civil Partnership aren't equal. It's not the same.
And neither will the "marriage" of a homosexual couple, since the obligations to consummation and sexual exclusivity will not be laid upon them but will continue to be laid upon heterosexual couples.
quote:
Everyone admits and acknowledges that changing the law will make marriage gender neutral.[/QB]
But why merely this redefinition. Why retain the restrictions on affinity and consanguinity? Why restrict the redefinition to bilateral relationships? Why not insist that for homosexuals non-consummation or adultery should be reasons for ending the marriage?
quote:
But marriage will continue to provide the same set of responsibilities and obligations as before.
Unless you are a homosexual couple, when you will not be bound to consummation and exclusive sexual fidelity.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The underlying issue is that homosexual marriage will destroy traditional marriage. Because if LBGT people get married, then straight marrieds will have to, erm, it will make them, uh, it will change the way they, ah, hang on. Bloody Hell, God says so! In some vague sort of fashion which people cannot ignore despite ignoring several other, more definite, prohibitions.
Thing is, religions can profess whatever daft things they wish to their adherents. but they've no right to do this to anyone else.
Rome, get out of the legal systems, you seem to wish to avoid them in other matters.
CofE, you have made the devil's bargain of being the state religion, you need to listen to the state. Which is coming round to allowing anybody, regardless of gender, to be married. So long as they truly wish to be miserable. I mean are in love.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
IngoB: quote:
the entire psychosomatic process of a man and a woman coming together in the "union of one flesh", i.e., vaginal intercourse
I'd always thought that becoming "one flesh" was about a great deal more than just penis-in-vagina ( Genesis 2. 24- the leaving and cleaving seemed to me to be important parts of the becoming). However if piv is all it takes, what about a man who has "played the field" before settling down. With whom is he "one flesh"?
[ 27. December 2012, 17:53: Message edited by: Robert Armin ]
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
If that's what marriage was in English Law then that'd be one thing but it isn't simply a "legally-contracted committed relationship". If it were, then, apart from anything else, we'd not have to have this double standard about consummation and adultery.
[tangent] Just out of curiousity, is there actually a "Clinton Exception" in British divorce law? (i.e. oral doesn't count as real adultery) [/tangent]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So Civil Partnership aren't equal. It's not the same.
And neither will the "marriage" of a homosexual couple, since the obligations to consummation and sexual exclusivity will not be laid upon them but will continue to be laid upon heterosexual couples.
Those laws can change as well. Many are outdated and irrelevant for heterosexual married couples as well. The goal is to rid ourselves of separate categories and have one institution for everyone. Same rules, same obligations.
quote:
quote:
Everyone admits and acknowledges that changing the law will make marriage gender neutral.[/qb]
But why merely this redefinition. Why retain the restrictions on affinity and consanguinity? Why restrict the redefinition to bilateral relationships? Why not insist that for homosexuals non-consummation or adultery should be reasons for ending the marriage?
Ugh. Slippery slopes again? Isn't this the #98292838th time people have brought this stuff up on SOF? I'm tired of these oh-so-predictable red-herrings. none of these have anything to do with the subject at hand. Even if gay marriage isn't passed, those other changes can be proposed.
If you want to argue that marriages should be changes in these other ways, start a thread on those, or contact your MP. The merits and drawbacks of those changes have nothing to do with this change.
quote:
quote:
But marriage will continue to provide the same set of responsibilities and obligations as before.
Unless you are a homosexual couple, when you will not be bound to consummation and exclusive sexual fidelity. [/QB]
No. If gays are allowed to be married under marriage laws, then they will be bound by the same terms as straight marriages. If these terms don't work (and they don't for many straight people now), they will be changed. The Coalition has proposed that penis-in-vagina consummation laws be removed already.
[ 27. December 2012, 18:00: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Trisagion: quote:
Unless you are a homosexual couple, when you will not be bound to consummation and exclusive sexual fidelity.
Why not? Does anyone know what the civil marriage service says about the commitment of the happy pair?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course, popular language usage may well call other things "marriage" and probably that is the case already. But words are not realities. And it is often the case that some group employs the same word in a much more specific, technical sense. The most likely scenario now is that the term "marriage" eventually will be applied to any kind of emotional and sexual relationship for which some intention exists that it will endure. Very well, but this will not change in the slightest what the RCC considers morally licit and it is also unlikely to change the language used in the RCC. "Marriage" will probably retain its status as technical term for a specific kind of relationship which the RCC endorses.
I'd say that defining "marriage" as "any relationship that bears the Roman Catholic seal of approval" is the real attempt to recast reality through clever word-play. For instance, I'm not sure why any civil society should give the Pope the authority to (for example) automatically annul all marriages of Catholics to non-Catholics. Why is it a good idea for any (non-theocratic) government to demand a statement of religious adherence (or non-adherence) from couples before issuing a marriage license? Yes, I understand why the Church has an interest in doing this, but I don't see any reason why its wishes should be paramount over those of individual citizens ordering their own lives.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I decided to try to answer my own question, but it proved to be difficult as the contents of a non-religious wedding do not seem to be tightly prescribed. The best I could come up with is this: quote:
Statutory Declaratory and Contracting Words
All civil marriage ceremonies and religious ceremonies other than Church of England, Jewish or Quaker, must incorporate statutory declaratory and contracting statements, to be said by both of you, for your marriage to be lawful. The registrar will usually suggest that the following traditional statements are used:
Declaratory Words
I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful
impediment why I, [your full name], may not be
joined in matrimony to [your partner's full name].
Contracting Words
I call upon these persons here present to witness that I,
[your full name], do take thee, [your partner's full name],
to be my lawful wedded wife [or husband].
However, since February 1997, you may choose to use either of the following alternative declaratory and contracting words:
Alternative Declaratory Words
I declare that I know of no legal reason
why I, [your full name], may not be joined
in marriage to [your partner's full name].
or
by replying 'I am' to the question
'Are you, [your full name], free lawfully
to marry [your partner's full name]'.
Alternative Contracting Words
I, [your full name], take you, [your partner's full name],
to be my wedded wife [or husband].
or
I, [your full name], take thee, [your partner's full name],
to be my wedded wife [or husband].
When giving notice of your marriage, you will be able to discuss your choice of declaratory and contracting words with the superintendent registrar or your religious celebrant. Generally, if you do not mention this matter, the traditional statements will be used.
From this site.
Consummation and exclusive sexual fidelity aren't set out there (come to think of it, they aren't mentioned explicitly in the Anglican service - maybe they are in the RC) but I would imagine any couple who want to get married, no matter their gender, would assume that is part of the commitment they are making to each other.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
There are many, many places (Nigeria, Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia, Malawi, Mauritania, Sénégal, Saudi Arabia) where same sex marriage and "sodomy" are completely forbidden, yet where there are no laws governing bilateral relationships, or affinity and consanguinity. Nigeria just "redefined" marriage to include polygamy within the last 12 years while simultaneously tightening its laws on same sex marriage.
In many developed countries, there is no requirement that consummation must be defined penis-in-vagina sex.
One has nothing to do with the other. Opening the door to same sex marriage doesn't lead to the door being opened to the others. Forbidding same sex marriage doesn't mean marriage can't or hasn't been changed in other fundamental ways. Marriages are "redefined" throughout the world from time to time based on different sets of claims and counter-claims. The ones that don't have to do with same sex relationships are irrelevant to discussions about gay marriage.
It's a very old and very tired red herring used by those who don't want to debate the merits of same sex marriage per se, but something entirely different.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Consummation and exclusive sexual fidelity aren't set out there (come to think of it, they aren't mentioned explicitly in the Anglican service - maybe they are in the RC) but I would imagine any couple who want to get married, no matter their gender, would assume that is part of the commitment they are making to each other.
They aren't set out there but they are set out as reasons for the granting of legal annulments and as grounds for divorce in the various statutes governing those matters.
@Toujours Dan, it isn't a slippery slope argument at all - although that would be no reason to dismiss it out of hand - but one which goes to the question of the power of the state and how it can be exercised. If the state is free to redefine marriage then to save us from Humpty Dumpty, we ought to have an idea about what are the underlying characteristics of marriage. Until now, it has meant a relationship between one man and one woman of legal capacity entered into without compulsion on the understanding that it is permanent (except for grave reasons) and sexually exclusive and is completed by heterosexual intercourse. The current proposals envisage dispensing with one aspect of that. Which of these is constitutive, which merely accidental and for what reasons.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Of course it's a slippery slope and I am going to dismiss it out of hand.
The UK is a representative democracy and has the right to change its laws based on the collective will of the people exercised democratically. If you don't like that, you can make your case against democracy and in favour of dictatorship or theocracy, or move to a place where that exists already. In the meantime this is what it is. The State is free to redefine marriage any which way it chooses to and has in numerous ways since it was established. That is just a fact.
You as a Catholic can define marriage in the way you believe pleases your vision of God's will. These won't necessarily match up. Forcing the rest of us to live under your doctrine is anti-democratic and an abridgement of our religious freedom as well as our rights as citizens of a democratic nation.
[ 27. December 2012, 18:41: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
So you see no reason why the state should not redefine marriage to encompass any relationship it chooses based on nothing more than for what it can muster a parliamentary majority? Fair enough. Odd that those proposing this new legislation aren't as upfront about that as you.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
So you see no reason why the state should not redefine marriage to encompass any relationship it chooses based on nothing more than for what it can muster a parliamentary majority? Fair enough. Odd that those proposing this new legislation aren't as upfront about that as you.
Odds that those opposing it don't believe in freedom of conscience or religion, and hate democracy for anyone but themselves.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
So you see no reason why the state should not redefine marriage to encompass any relationship it chooses based on nothing more than for what it can muster a parliamentary majority? Fair enough. Odd that those proposing this new legislation aren't as upfront about that as you.
And this isn't what I said. I said the State can define marriage to encompass anything it chooses through a parliamentary majority. I didn't say it should. "Can" and "should" have two completely differente meanings.
If you have been tracking and comprehending this discussion at all, I said that the other points you raised should, and have been, debated on their own merits. They have nothing to do with same sex marriage. I don't think slippery slope arguments are valid.
[ 27. December 2012, 18:51: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Point of contention, Trisagion.
Marraige has not been the immutable, carved in stone version you claim. Marraige has varied in form and importance throughout history and, IIRC, in your holy book.
As far as your, it has always been this way view, even were that true, it is no argument to keep it that way. For the same reason slavery is no longer deemed acceptable, even though there is it appears to be fine and dandy in the bible.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
