Catholic Archbishop attacks gay marriage as undemocratic

[daddy1gringo]

Look, I, and a lot more people on my side of the fence than you realize, recognize that in the 21st century in the U.S. and the U.K., where many people are not Christians, we can't require that the laws conform to the Bible. We would be better off if they did, but the combination of democracy and diversity prevent that.

Can you elaborate on what way we would be better off,and would this apply to the OT?

When a couple got married in the OT, the man didn't have to go to war or even to work for a whole year so the newlyweds could enjoy each other's company. Marriages strengthened, stronger families, a lot of other problems lessened.

[chang50]

Look, I, and a lot more people on my side of the fence than you realize, recognize that in the 21st century in the U.S. and the U.K., where many people are not Christians, we can't require that the laws conform to the Bible. We would be better off if they did, but the combination of democracy and diversity prevent that.

Can you elaborate on what way we would be better off,and would this apply to the OT?

When a couple got married in the OT, the man didn't have to go to war or even to work for a whole year so the newlyweds could enjoy each other's company. Marriages strengthened, stronger families, a lot of other problems lessened.

Thanks,personally I can't agree we would be better off with any 2000 plus year old practices,the example you quote is obviously patriachal and sexist by modern standards.

[daddy1gringo]

Can you elaborate on what way we would be better off,and would this apply to the OT?

When a couple got married in the OT, the man didn't have to go to war or even to work for a whole year so the newlyweds could enjoy each other's company. Marriages strengthened, stronger families, a lot of other problems lessened.

Thanks,personally I can't agree we would be better off with any 2000 plus year old practices,the example you quote is obviously patriachal and sexist by modern standards.

Aw c'mon, are you married? I would've liked to have had the first year off. Everybody would have forgotten we existed. I'd lock the freakin' doors and only come out for romantic moonlight picnicks. (Then again, nobody else is married to the sexiest, most beautiful woman in the world as I am )

Patriarchal? It was my wife whlo first brought this to my attention as an example of God's kindness to the Israelite women. It is the women that tend to be more into relationship and would welcome having new hubby all to themselves for a whole year to develop relationship on all levels before he goes rushing back to work or off to war.

[daddy1gringo]

We make some real progress here, but it's a rocky road getting there.

But the whole point of this thread is that this particular bishop IS trying to use secular law to forbid people from having their relationships recognised, based on his religious beliefs.

Right! ".. use secular law to forbid people from having their relationships recognised". Not: "forbid sex, -living together, -loving", etc. They are not the same thing, though at this point in your post you are still talking as if they are.

It's not about sex, or living with someone, or holding hands in public, or any of that.

Yes! Yes! exactly!

The conversation is all about legal and financial rights as granted by a secular government to two people in a relationship

Exactly again. ...or actually, he was even a whole level further away. Strictly speaking, he was complaining about the procedutral steps that people had, or had not made in advancing legal changes in the opposite direction.

...that is accepted by a majority of the population as being morally and legally permissible.

Now that part, though I am not interested in a statistics war to prove that it is actually false, it is as least highly questionable and certainly not an established fact.

I'm not saying the catholic church (or any other) should be forced to start holding gay marriages, but this bishop IS saying "it's not allowed in my religion, therefore it shouldn't be allowed for anyone".

See, here you jump back from "contesting legal recogniotion" to "forbidding doing it". You see why I am so concerned about the convenient mixing of these two different things? It is so deeply ingrained in the psyche of those on that side of the argument that you don't even notice that you are jumping back and forth.

THIS is why he is the focus of the criticism of many in this thread.

I acknowledge that apart from a few nutty fundamentalists nobody is going to try and ban homosexual sex or relationships using secular law.

Hallelujah! That’s what I was looking for: somebody actually said it!

You talk as if that is an “of course” kind of thing, but I have been trying for years to get anyone to sit still and deal with this. Up until this momentous occasion, it has always been the same mis-direction trick I mentioned earlier. Even so, My joy is lessened by the fact that you surrounded it with so much of the old sloshing the two together, speaking as if the statements were not inconsistent, that I am about 50% sure that by 2 posts down the line you, along with everybody else will be back to the old “Why can’t you let people do what they want?” “You’re trying to make laws to tell people not to love!” crap. But, I thank God for small favors and hope for the best.

But even after I acknowledge that, we still have the two questions I posted

Exactly. Now that we have gotten off the quicksand onto solid ground, we can deal with the questions as I promised.

… direct from your own words where you said that there are negative consequences to society to allowing gay marriage. I genuinely don't see what you could be referring to there that hasn't already been thoroughly debunked in the last 20 or so years.

Let me get to work on your specific questions. If my answer gets too long and involved, as it is likely to, I may just get this posted up to here while I work on finishing.

[chang50]

Can you elaborate on what way we would be better off,and would this apply to the OT?

When a couple got married in the OT, the man didn't have to go to war or even to work for a whole year so the newlyweds could enjoy each other's company. Marriages strengthened, stronger families, a lot of other problems lessened.

Thanks,personally I can't agree we would be better off with any 2000 plus year old practices,the example you quote is obviously patriachal and sexist by modern standards.

Aw c'mon, are you married? I would've liked to have had the first year off. Everybody would have forgotten we existed. I'd lock the freakin' doors and only come out for romantic moonlight picnicks. (Then again, nobody else is married to the sexiest, most beautiful woman in the world as I am )

Patriarchal? It was my wife whlo first brought this to my attention as an example of God's kindness to the Israelite women. It is the women that tend to be more into relationship and would welcome having new hubby all to themselves for a whole year to develop relationship on all levels before he goes rushing back to work or off to war.

Actually I am married and had longer than a year off work 'cos I was/still am retired..of course 2000 plus years ago my chances of living long enough or making enough dosh to retire would have been negligible.

[crispybits]

Daddy I have at no point claimed that the bishop is trying to make laws against homosexual relationships. I'm really not sure what you're getting at there. The fact is that there are religious organisations which would happily marry gay couples if they were allowed to, but they are prevented from offering an equal service as they offer to sraight couples because of secular laws. The same secular laws that forbid gay couples receiving the equal treatment in legal-marital matters as straight couples. This conversation is about a catholic bishop trying to enforce, by law, his religious belief on others (including other religions).

As for the "most people find gay relationships legally and morally permissible", the following link has some useful data:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/4984

[Symmetry]

Aye, I guess the point he's addressing, D1G is that some religions would actually welcome gay couples into their church. I don't see why that should be against the law because some other religions don't like it. The "attack on religion" argument is kind of redundant if it's just about the religions and creeds that dislike the idea, while ignoring the religions and creeds that are ok with it, or support it.

[stahrgazer]

Aye, I guess the point he's addressing, D1G is that some religions would actually welcome gay couples into their church. I don't see why that should be against the law because some other religions don't like it. The "attack on religion" argument is kind of redundant if it's just about the religions and creeds that dislike the idea, while ignoring the religions and creeds that are ok with it, or support it.

And yet, since most (not all, but most) religious follow either the Old or New Testament Bible, or the Koran, most religions actually have "creeds" that prohibit homosexual relations; they're merely ignoring those "creeds" in order to increase members (because increased members = increased tithes/church wealth.)

Only non-biblical, non-Koran religions may be able to honestly say their religious creeds don't prohibit homosexuality.

[crispybits]

And yet such religions exist, and therefore christians and muslims have no more right to limit their freedom to practice religion as they do to limit yours in a secular society.

[Symmetry]

Aye, I guess the point he's addressing, D1G is that some religions would actually welcome gay couples into their church. I don't see why that should be against the law because some other religions don't like it. The "attack on religion" argument is kind of redundant if it's just about the religions and creeds that dislike the idea, while ignoring the religions and creeds that are ok with it, or support it.

And yet, since most (not all, but most) religious follow either the Old or New Testament Bible, or the Koran, most religions actually have "creeds" that prohibit homosexual relations; they're merely ignoring those "creeds" in order to increase members (because increased members = increased tithes/church wealth.)

Only non-biblical, non-Koran religions may be able to honestly say their religious creeds don't prohibit homosexuality.

I'm sorry, but you'll find several Christian churches are pretty ok with gay marriage, and more that are ok with homosexuality.

The Quakers, for example, actively support it.

http://www.quaker.org.uk/samesexbriefing

Quakers see God in everyone and that leads us to say that all committed loving relationships are of equal worth and so Quakers in Britain wish to celebrate them in the same way.
Paul Parker, recording clerk for Quakers in Britain says: “The day the first same-sex couple can marry in their Quaker meeting will be a wonderful day for marriage, and a great day for religious freedom in Britain. Quakers greet the news we can ‘opt in’ to equal marriage with enthusiasm, but await the details of how this will work in practice.”
He explains: “Quakers see God in everyone and so we would say that all committed relationships are of equal worth. The new regulations (from December 2011) allow civil partnerships in Quaker Meeting houses in England and Wales, but that is not a marriage; it is a legal contract, not a spiritual one. That is why we are seeking a further change in the law so that same-sex marriages can be celebrated within a couple’s worshipping community. Quakerism is a contemporary and radical faith, which is open to new light, and we strive to discern what the world needs of us. For us, this means seeking legal recognition for the practice we already recognise. We don’t seek to impose this on anyone else. For Quakers this is an issue of religious freedom.”

[stahrgazer]

Aye, I guess the point he's addressing, D1G is that some religions would actually welcome gay couples into their church. I don't see why that should be against the law because some other religions don't like it. The "attack on religion" argument is kind of redundant if it's just about the religions and creeds that dislike the idea, while ignoring the religions and creeds that are ok with it, or support it.

And yet, since most (not all, but most) religious follow either the Old or New Testament Bible, or the Koran, most religions actually have "creeds" that prohibit homosexual relations; they're merely ignoring those "creeds" in order to increase members (because increased members = increased tithes/church wealth.)

Only non-biblical, non-Koran religions may be able to honestly say their religious creeds don't prohibit homosexuality.

I'm sorry, but you'll find several Christian churches are pretty ok with gay marriage, and more that are ok with homosexuality.

The Quakers, for example, actively support it.

http://www.quaker.org.uk/samesexbriefing

Quakers see God in everyone and that leads us to say that all committed loving relationships are of equal worth and so Quakers in Britain wish to celebrate them in the same way.
Paul Parker, recording clerk for Quakers in Britain says: “The day the first same-sex couple can marry in their Quaker meeting will be a wonderful day for marriage, and a great day for religious freedom in Britain. Quakers greet the news we can ‘opt in’ to equal marriage with enthusiasm, but await the details of how this will work in practice.”
He explains: “Quakers see God in everyone and so we would say that all committed relationships are of equal worth. The new regulations (from December 2011) allow civil partnerships in Quaker Meeting houses in England and Wales, but that is not a marriage; it is a legal contract, not a spiritual one. That is why we are seeking a further change in the law so that same-sex marriages can be celebrated within a couple’s worshipping community. Quakerism is a contemporary and radical faith, which is open to new light, and we strive to discern what the world needs of us. For us, this means seeking legal recognition for the practice we already recognise. We don’t seek to impose this on anyone else. For Quakers this is an issue of religious freedom.”

And yet, since most (not all, but most) religious follow either the Old or New Testament Bible, or the Koran, most religions actually have "creeds" that prohibit homosexual relations; they're merely ignoring those "creeds" in order to increase members (because increased members = increased tithes/church wealth.)

Quakers = 1. I would say that your being able to show one whole religion without that creed proves my point. BTW, I think you can add Scientology as a second religion without that creed, that doesn't follow either the old or new testament bible, the koran, or the torah-which was based on old testament anyway.

But for those who base themselves on old/new testament bible to throw away precepts that the God of those records found important so man could "be fruitful and multiply" seems itself a sacrilege. And if you don't buy the "be fruitful and multiply" argument you can look in Genesis and see that God deemed that woman, not another man, should be man's perfect mate and partner; and likewise for Eve, Adam, not Jennifer, was supposed to be her partner.

It mattered to that God, so it should matter to those who claim to follow that God. Now, if they don't choose to follow that God, then that's their right and is, indeed, part of "religious freedom" that they can worship whoever they choose.

[Symmetry]

Aye, I guess the point he's addressing, D1G is that some religions would actually welcome gay couples into their church. I don't see why that should be against the law because some other religions don't like it. The "attack on religion" argument is kind of redundant if it's just about the religions and creeds that dislike the idea, while ignoring the religions and creeds that are ok with it, or support it.

And yet, since most (not all, but most) religious follow either the Old or New Testament Bible, or the Koran, most religions actually have "creeds" that prohibit homosexual relations; they're merely ignoring those "creeds" in order to increase members (because increased members = increased tithes/church wealth.)

Only non-biblical, non-Koran religions may be able to honestly say their religious creeds don't prohibit homosexuality.

I'm sorry, but you'll find several Christian churches are pretty ok with gay marriage, and more that are ok with homosexuality.

The Quakers, for example, actively support it.

http://www.quaker.org.uk/samesexbriefing

Quakers see God in everyone and that leads us to say that all committed loving relationships are of equal worth and so Quakers in Britain wish to celebrate them in the same way.
Paul Parker, recording clerk for Quakers in Britain says: “The day the first same-sex couple can marry in their Quaker meeting will be a wonderful day for marriage, and a great day for religious freedom in Britain. Quakers greet the news we can ‘opt in’ to equal marriage with enthusiasm, but await the details of how this will work in practice.”
He explains: “Quakers see God in everyone and so we would say that all committed relationships are of equal worth. The new regulations (from December 2011) allow civil partnerships in Quaker Meeting houses in England and Wales, but that is not a marriage; it is a legal contract, not a spiritual one. That is why we are seeking a further change in the law so that same-sex marriages can be celebrated within a couple’s worshipping community. Quakerism is a contemporary and radical faith, which is open to new light, and we strive to discern what the world needs of us. For us, this means seeking legal recognition for the practice we already recognise. We don’t seek to impose this on anyone else. For Quakers this is an issue of religious freedom.”

And yet, since most (not all, but most) religious follow either the Old or New Testament Bible, or the Koran, most religions actually have "creeds" that prohibit homosexual relations; they're merely ignoring those "creeds" in order to increase members (because increased members = increased tithes/church wealth.)

Quakers = 1. I would say that your being able to show one whole religion without that creed proves my point. BTW, I think you can add Scientology as a second religion without that creed, that doesn't follow either the old or new testament bible, the koran, or the torah-which was based on old testament anyway.

But for those who base themselves on old/new testament bible to throw away precepts that the God of those records found important so man could "be fruitful and multiply" seems itself a sacrilege. And if you don't buy the "be fruitful and multiply" argument you can look in Genesis and see that God deemed that woman, not another man, should be man's perfect mate and partner; and likewise for Eve, Adam, not Jennifer, was supposed to be her partner.

It mattered to that God, so it should matter to those who claim to follow that God. Now, if they don't choose to follow that God, then that's their right and is, indeed, part of "religious freedom" that they can worship whoever they choose.

A baffling response- are you under the impression that Quakerism is not based on the Bible? Why do you think it's contemporary? As a historian of the seventeenth century I'm intrigued. Do you consider Christianity a religion, or a collection of religions?

[PLAYER57832]

Look, I, and a lot more people on my side of the fence than you realize, recognize that in the 21st century in the U.S. and the U.K., where many people are not Christians, we can't require that the laws conform to the Bible. We would be better off if they did, but the combination of democracy and diversity prevent that.

Can you elaborate on what way we would be better off,and would this apply to the OT?

When a couple got married in the OT, the man didn't have to go to war or even to work for a whole year so the newlyweds could enjoy each other's company. Marriages strengthened, stronger families, a lot of other problems lessened.

That lone provision, sure.. but then you look at the whole mix and you get a different picture, particularly for women and children.

[PLAYER57832]

Aye, I guess the point he's addressing, D1G is that some religions would actually welcome gay couples into their church. I don't see why that should be against the law because some other religions don't like it. The "attack on religion" argument is kind of redundant if it's just about the religions and creeds that dislike the idea, while ignoring the religions and creeds that are ok with it, or support it.

And yet, since most (not all, but most) religious follow either the Old or New Testament Bible, or the Koran, most religions actually have "creeds" that prohibit homosexual relations; they're merely ignoring those "creeds" in order to increase members (because increased members = increased tithes/church wealth.).

A lot of things are assumed to be true, when the truth is that they were actually based on customs of the day and not set forth as rules.

One example in Islam is the wearing of the veil. (I am specifically using that example, one I am not that versed in, because I don't want to get drawn into a debate of the issue itself) It came about, apparently, because Mohammed's wives wore veils. However, that was just a custom of wealthy women of that time, not a religiously significant statement. That said, many Muslims consider wearing the veil or the Habib or Burkha to be part of their religion.

In the case of homosexuality, there are 2 views. One is that homosexuality was prohibited like many activities because the Old Testament people asked for and required a lot of rules to show them how to live. Christianity, by contrast, is based upon the idea of forgiveness and faith, not following set rules (though Roman Catholics dispute that ..). By that argument, homosexuality is no more prohibitted than wearing plain clothes without fringes or many other things set forth in the old Testament.

The other thinking is the New Testament prohibitions. However, the argument is that these references were to specific religious practices that used sex and essentially abuse of slaves as a kind of worship. That kind of worship was anathema to Christians, to God. The idea of simple love of one man for another or one woman for another was not prohibited.


Regardless, marriage has long since gone from a purely religious institution to one of significant practical secular import. Denying homosexuals marriage based on religious grounds when Bhuddists, HIndus, atheists are not denied that right is plain silly. If anything goes against Christianity, it is atheism!

[PLAYER57832]

What is needed before I can be fairly expectred to answer those questions is an acknowledgement of the point I brought up: that I (and most people on my side of the fence) are not advocating using the secular law to forbid people from having homosexual sex. Then we could go on to intelligently debating the consequences of the measures actually being sought by both sides.

This, in and of itself is a very disengenious argument. It is like saying that marriage is all about sex, and it isn't.

You do argue that in the heterosexual sense, but then want to fall back upon this "but we are not forbidding sex" when it comes to homosexuality.

ALL of the benefits you put forward regarding heterosexuality & marriage, including basci commitment, financial benefits, protecting children and many more , can be equally voiced for homosexual couples.

[stahrgazer]

The other thinking is the New Testament prohibitions. However, the argument is that these references were to specific religious practices that used sex and essentially abuse of slaves as a kind of worship. That kind of worship was anathema to Christians, to God. The idea of simple love of one man for another or one woman for another was not prohibited.

Regardless, marriage has long since gone from a purely religious institution to one of significant practical secular import. Denying homosexuals marriage based on religious grounds when Bhuddists, HIndus, atheists are not denied that right is plain silly. If anything goes against Christianity, it is atheism!

As to atheism, I don't see any Christians saying, "that's okay," and by that argument, homosexuality shouldn't be "okay" with supposed Christians. Just because you "forgive" someone something, doesn't mean you condone that something, there is and should be a difference between forgiving the person and condoning/encouraging the same actions. Neither should supposed Christians wish to stone homosexuals to death, and that's the "forgiveness" you spoke of.

I have a problem with those who supposedly follow the creeds layed out in the religious texts suddenly saying homosexuality is the same. It's not the same. Legally, it may be okay, but if everyone were to turn purely homosexual, the race of man would end, and that makes it somewhat NOT okay, by nature.

I have no problem with social contracts giving all the legalities. But it's different, even if should legally be treated the same, and keeping the name different indicates, "it may be okay with society just as marriage (between man and woman) is; but the two types of contracts are DIFFERENT."

[crispybits]

And if everyone were to turn black, there would be no more white people! OMG stop people turning black!!!! Won't somebody think of the children!



Sorry to say it stahrgazer, but as I've already pointed out once (can't remember if it was in this thread or not) you've ALREADY lost the argument. When you start giving gay people the same legal rights as straight people, and making illegal the discrimination against an individual based on their sexuality, as most of not all developed western countries have done, then you have already lost any legal standing by which to deny gay couples identical treatment of their relationships, including the name they choose to call it.

Nobody wants to force a priest, against their will, to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple. Can you imagine talking to various different people and choosing the one who reviles your lifestyle as the one who will perform the most loving and important ceremony of your entire life? Gay couples will find pro-gay priests and officials to perform their services. There's plenty out there.

But marriage is NOT a Christian invention, and so your religious views on what constitutes a christian marriage are no more relevant than a Hindu saying that you should have to follow their customs, practices and rules when you get married. You (as in Christians generally) do NOT own marriage, and you do NOT get the final say-so about who can and can't partake of it.

[Symmetry]

Well said, Stahr seems very clear on opposing gay marriage, and very very confused about why. Even less so on the very fragile assumption that it somehow hurts Christians, or religions, or something.