Gay marriage - 'shameful'?

[Suffragette1]

I understand it may be difficult, but could we just try and keep this thread within family friendly bounds please?

 

Mea culpa. The frustration is bringing out my 'darker side' (by that, let me qualify that I am not referring to my mixed race heritage:hihi:). I will try and behave.

[Zamo]

Oh we can all laugh again now.

 

Do you think no one else knows about sex?

Why do you feel it neccassary to keep passing on information,as if you assume everyone is ignorant,or perhaps you are trying to set youself up as the sex educationalist of the forum.

 

Some people have assumed to preach about what is normal and what should be permitted in a marriage. I merely point out the ignorance and double standards of those views.

[janie48]

Well, yeah, I just said that

 

Good! It's always best to know what you're discussing, a lot on here don't seem to know.

 

For those who think this thread is about gays marrying in church (which there shouldn't be a problem with anyway in my opinion), this is what the OP was referring to-

 

"A Catholic clergyman who described gay marriage as "madness" faced criticism on Sunday when he was accused of scaremongering and Downing Street reiterated the prime minister's personal support on the issue.

 

In an article for a Sunday newspaper, Cardinal Keith O'Brien accused the coalition of trying to "redefine reality" with its proposal for legalising gay marriage, which is due to go out for consultation later this month."

 

 

...from here

 

I did make a feeble attempt yesterday to explain , why some Christian religious leaders and members of the faith choose to select certain passages of the bible to justify their reasons. I only made a vague reference to the bible,i was hoping someone would expand on it before.

 

I have always considered myself to be reasonably broadminded,its just that i feel some things are not appropiate for a family forum, thats why i made that comment,and hoped someone would respond to it.

Just for once i was hoping someone would agree with me.

[RootsBooster]

I did make a feeble attempt yesterday to explain , why some Christian religious leaders and members of the faith choose to select certain passages of the bible to justify their reasons. I only made a vague reference to the bible,i was hoping someone would expand on it before.

 

I have always considered myself to be reasonably broadminded,its just that i feel some things are not appropiate for a family forum, thats why i made that comment,and hoped someone would respond to it.

Just for once i was hoping someone would agree with me.

 

It depends how people approach the subject. It's a serious issue that can be discussed without using graphic terminology. People can simple say words like "parts of the male anatomy" or "parts of the female anatomy" without using anything that may offend people.

 

Interestingly, it's a couple of the "against" crowd who keep bringing sex into it.

[janie48]

It depends how people approach the subject. It's a serious issue that can be discussed without using graphic terminology. People can simple say words like "parts of the male anatomy" or "parts of the female anatomy" without using anything that may offend people.

 

Interestingly, it's a couple of the "against" crowd who keep bringing sex into it.

 

Well people should be just a little more delicate,but thats just my view.

I expect i will receive further opposition as i have done recently with many of my comments,but i'm in no mood now to discuss anything more.

[Halibut]

It depends how people approach the subject. It's a serious issue that can be discussed without using graphic terminology. People can simple say words like "parts of the male anatomy" or "parts of the female anatomy" without using anything that may offend people.

 

Interestingly, it's a couple of the "against" crowd who keep bringing sex into it.

 

It was indeed. Rickiethecat responded to my question asking what was immoral about gay marriage with a number of posts focusing on various anatomical possibilities.

 

He clearly illustrated the major flaw in his argument by refusing to acknowledge that many straight couples also indulge in some of the behaviours he claims are exclusively 'gay'.

 

Someone - was it rickiethecat? I really can't be bothered to look now - suggested that sex was 'all about' the act of male/female coitus.

 

I can only pity his partner. If he has one.

[Bloomdido]

As this is a family forum I can't be too explicit, but the male and female bodies are designed in such a way that sexual pleasure is gained through the genitals. These are sensitive to sexual contact in a way that other orifices aren't.

 

What is natural about a man inserting his penis in an orifice where it's not meant to go, particularly when such an act causes pain and discomfort to the recipient?

 

And if homosexuality is natural, why do only 1% of the UK population practice it?

 

Thats anything oral out of the window then. It may have been painful for you but it gets more accommodting with perseverence.

[Zamo]

Interestingly, it's a couple of the "against" crowd who keep bringing sex into it.

the "against" what crowd? You mean the against being dictated to about what is normal and who can and can't marry crowd?

[GodStar]

You might as well argue that the purpose of the penis and vagina is to get rid of urine and therefore they aren't intended to be sexual.

 

You didnt listen in biology did you?

[quisquose]

Well this is reassuring, and yet unsurprising given what the Ipsos-Mori research indicates about what Christians actually think about gay rights, and shows that the religious establishment is out of step with those that they claim to represent.

 

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/03/more-catholics-rebel-against-hierarchys-homophobia

 

More Catholics rebel against hierarchy’s homophobia

 

Reports suggest that the controversial bishops' letter opposing gay marriage which was supposed to be read out to all Catholic congregations in England and Wales a couple of Sundays ago was widely ignored and disregarded.

 

Reports are coming in from Catholic sympathisers that the letter was not read out by their priest as it was supposed to be. It is not clear how many churches ignored the letter, but the Catholic magazine The Tablet reports that many Catholics walked out of churches where it was read.

 

The magazine reports that the letter, written by the Archbishops of Westminster and Southwark, got a frosty reception in some places. "One parishioner in Oxfordshire explained that six people walked out of Mass at his church when the letter was read out. 'I have never seen that in 40 years', he said. 'It was done very quietly in a dignified fashion and with no shaking of fists'."

 

The Tablet said that dozens of Catholics voiced their opposition to the letter on the social networking website Mumsnet, which attracts more than 1.5 million users a month – a large proportion of whom are middle-class mothers. Some contributors to Mumsnet said that the letter had forced them to reconsider their faith.

 

One person who used the name LividCatholic described how they had walked out of Mass while the letter was being read shouting "I'm ashamed to be a Catholic" while another said they had "cried during Mass" adding: "I don't want to leave the church but I don't know if I can stay, either." Another said the Archbishops' letter had reduced marriage to "a means to reproduce".

 

Some priests had not read the letter out but had distributed copies for those who wanted to read it. Others did not ask parishioners to sign petitions, as requested in the letter.