Goon Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) Gay marriage makes a mockery of the word marriage. So two people who love each other and want to take vows in the eyes of their god makes a mockery of marriage?Surely any couple who are rather quick to forsake their vows after rushing into marriage are the ones who make a mockery of marraige? A huge problem the church faces at the moment is membership and involvement of the community. Preventing certain members of the community from being a part of the church is not only shameful but will ultimately have a detrimental effect on the church. Edited March 10, 2012 by Goon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Cardinal Keith O' Brien thinks so; he's also likened it to legalising slavery. I think he's talking nonsense. What do you think? The Catholic Church have been getting to the bottom of this for years. Why do you wear your collars back to front, is that to confuse young boys. This is Christianity, I'm an Atheist, why do you do it ?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Cardinal Keith O' Brien thinks so; he's also likened it to legalising slavery. I think he's talking nonsense. What do you think? He is an a* *ole and has probably heard about " Dees Tings ". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 What rights do straight people have, that gay couples don't have? With respect to marriage v civil partnerships: http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/17/gay-marriage-civil-partnerships?cat=world&type=article However, I suspect the right that is missing is simply the right to assert yourself as married. I would imagine this is quite important. It should also be noted that the right to have a civil partnership is not available to heterosexual couples, which many want instead of marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Hugo Rifkind, writing in the Times of all places, did a lovely demolition job on the so-called arguments against gay marriage this week: “Marriage is a thing between a man and a woman,” say those against. Well, yes. Indeed. That’s rather the problem. It’s only true until it stops being true. It’s analogous, exactly, to saying “voting is a thing done by men”. This isn’t a reason, but a description of the status quo. “Marriage is a natural thing with a historical pedigree,” they say. “Civil partnerships are a legal construct.” Natural? Do the birds and bees do it? I’ve never been invited. Come on. Do better. “Difference doesn’t entail inequality,” say the opponents, learning now. “They can be equal without being married.” That almost sounds reasonable. But you’ve got to be careful with this “difference” thing. You can’t just state it, you’ve got to justify it. Different how? Not the childbirth thing, surely. What about the old, the unable, the plain unkeen who can’t have children or who just don’t fancy it? What if scientists found a way to enable a man to give birth? Problem solved? “This undermines marriage,” they say, growing cunningly sociological. Nah. This is what a philosopher would call circular reasoning. You are arguing from your own conclusions. If same-sex relationships were wrong and perverse, then they would undermine marriage. But if they aren’t, they won’t. Don’t you see? This isn’t a reason, either. It’s a declaration of prejudice, disguised. Won't link because it's behind the paywall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Hes an idiot. Do you mean eejiot in Southern Irish. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Have your partnerships, swap your rings and enjoy the first dance at your disco. No need to put the Do Not Disturb sign on your hotel room door. There's "no need" for straight couples to do it either, but it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Cardinal Keith O' Brien thinks so; he's also likened it to legalising slavery. I think he's talking nonsense. What do you think? For the Catholic Church it's a bum job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMoran Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 What annoys me is that youve got the catholic church saying on one hand how gays are evil, wrong, sick and shouldnt get married in a church but then on the other hand the priests are regualy taking choir boys up the arris. Now call me fickle but if you like bum then generaly you are gay. So it makes them a little hypocritical in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 That's a great article by Hugo Rifkind. Thanks for sharing Jessica23. Incidentally, if you heard O'Brien's interview with John Humpries on the radio the other day you would have heard him supporting civil partnerships but saying that it was just the use of the word "marriage" for gay couples that was wrong. But wind the clock back to 2004/2005 and you will find many quotes from him where he thinks that civil partnerships for gay couples is wrong. I have no doubt that if you could wind the clock back to 1967 you would find him complaining about removing the law that forbids sodomy. So even bigots like O'Brien can become more enlightened, I guess, it's just that they prefer to remain a step or two behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts