HeliX Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Telling a nation which has severe HIV & AIDS problems that condoms are evil is fine, but two blokes getting married is an abomination. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The bishop's argument in the Telegraph yesterday was very wooly. It was as if he taking part in a debating competition where you have to argue a posistion you disagree with, except in this he was arguing a posistion he agreed with but couldn't refer to the main reason for his support. His viewpoint is based on his religion's belief that homosexuality is wrong. But he's trying to use the language of logic and reason to convince. This is why it sounds hollow, he's using rationale language and ideas to convince people of a viewpoint he arrived at by faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Contemptible. I think you are wrong to use this adjective. Bearing in mind that, in the Catholic tenet, the sole purpose of sex is to reproduce, heterosexual couples should only engage in sex with this purpose. Likewise, homosexual sex is wrong as it cannot lead to procreation. This stance may well be totally impractical and unreasonable, but is it "contemptible"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 We live in a world of bigotry - not just Catholic bigotry. It would be great if people could accept each others views even though they do not agree with them. It seems to be against human nature to do that. What causes bigotry - fear of difference?: poor education?: bad upbringing?: a belief that 'I am entirely right?': I continue to wonder why so many people are bigoted or prejudiced. Some atheists are bigoted about Christians, some Christians are bigoted against a whole raft of things, some Muslims are bigoted against a whole raft of things, some heterosexuals are bigoted against homosexuals, some homosexuals are bigoted against Christians, some English are bigoted against Scots and Irish, some Scots and Irish reciprocate... I am not sure that singling out a particular area of bigotry shows anything other than that we are all biased one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 @ Evil Goblin - I think the views expressed by the Cardinal are worthy of contempt - he obviously does not. Society has to decide how to regulate marriage - that is not for me, or for the Cardinal to dictate, but for our law-makers who no doubt will canvass diverse opinions in coming to their conclusion. He was interviewed on the Today Programme this morning - Link - it was reactionary in the extreme - equating gay marriage with laws approving slavery, going on about natural law, and that same sex marriage would lead to society "degenerating even further... into immorality". For me this is about Homosexuals having a place in society to express their love and companionship with another consenting person, about encouraging such relationships to be long standing and supporting. The Cardinal views all these things as degenerate and immoral and would rather discriminate and surpress. I was fascinated by his claim that the Declaration of Universal Human Rights defines marriage exclusively heterosexually so I went and looked it up - Article 16 (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Now where does this say men cannot marry men, and women cannot marry women? To use this as an argument for the banning of gay marriages is incredibly weak - in fact I can see it being used to make quite the opposite argument: men and women should be able to marry who they wish to - freely and with the full consent of the intending spouse. Also note the Declaration says that people have a right to the dissolution of a marriage - something the Catholic Church denies: they only allow the annulment of a marriage in very specific circumstances, if the marriage was normally constituted it cannot be dissolved in Catholic dogma. He wants things both ways round - when Human Rights Laws clash with his beliefs he demands the right to ignore them and be given an excemption, but he will also attempt to twist them to his definition and then try to impose that definition on the rest of society. The Catholic Church does not have the right to enforce its definition of marriage on the rest of society. It is emphatically false that everyone universally agrees marriage can only between a man and a woman, homosexual marriage ceremonies have existed for longer than Christianity has! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 It just strikes me as the stupidest thing in the world to get mad about, if you don't like gay marriage you can simply not get gay married. It doesn't affect you in any other way whatsoever. Just people going out of their way to be offended so that they have something to do. Also it says in the Bible not to pry into politics. But I guess catholics do a good job of ignoring that bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Not trying to defend Roman Catholicism HeliX but the history of all religions is full of clerics prying into politics. Indeed if it were not so, why do we need a Bishop in the LegCo here or the same in the UK Lords? For that matter why do we have a Lord of Mann who is head of the C of E? I can accept that people see this specific issue as one they feel strongly about - but it is but one case of a bigot choosing to show their intolerance in a world full of them. And, BTW, if a religion has a particular position on the role of marriage should it not be acceptable and appropriate in a tolerant society for them to promote that position? Much better IMO for this to be out in the open than for some Opus Dei like organisation to be influencing things behind the scenes. The rest of us, through the democratic process, can make up our own minds and demonstrate our alternative opinion if we have one. I suspect in the wider context of life that this is actually a storm in a teacup - not one to got too worked up about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 @ Evil Goblin - I think the views expressed by the Cardinal are worthy of contempt - he obviously does not. Society has to decide how to regulate marriage - that is not for me, or for the Cardinal to dictate, but for our law-makers who no doubt will canvass diverse opinions in coming to their conclusion. The problem is that marriage has,until recent times, been a religiously-based institution so expecting religious believers to accept that marriage can be a non-religious institution but merely a secular arrangement is going a bit too far. If you are going to divorce religion from marriage then surely the thing to do is to restrict marriage to be a relationship determined by the Churches and having secular effect with all "non-religious" marriages being just Civil Partnerships. The Cardinal views all these things as degenerate and immoral and would rather discriminate and surpress. That's the problem with morality, isn't it? You have your opinion and firmly believe you are right - others have different opinions and firmly believe they are right. Traditionally,appeal to Divine Law was used to render an objective answer possible - if you are going to reject all notion of God what do you suggest as a viable objective standard by which all moral views can be judged? (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Notably, (1) does not say "without any limitation due to sexuality". The inclusion of "to found a family" clearly envisages a heterosexual arrangement, does it not? Therefore I think you are the one with a weak argument. By all means hold the opinion that the HRA should be amended but to say that, as it stands, it supports your argument, is plain wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Does the linking together of two people's families not constitute founding a family? Does adoption not constitute founding a family? (Frankly I also much prefer the idea of a gay married couple adopting than I do a heterosexual married couple reproducing. Reproduction far too often ends in unwanted children. Adoption does not, infact it fixes that issue). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 Evil Goblin - I think you are wrong concerning marriage - common law marriage was a norm historically - significant proportions of people were not formally married by the Church and so it had to claim its authority over them by defining their relationship common law marriage. Marriage has always been an overlapping magisteria with Church, state and individuals all having their own domains, often telling the other two to get out of its affairs! Over how to establish an objective standard of morality I've no idea - but quite definitely having some old bloke in a frock turn up and say God has told him he is right is not going to do it. EG are you really saying a Gay couple cannot found a family? What world do you live in? Gays raise millions of families world-wide in multiple ways, just as heterosexual couples do. You may wish to try to draw a line around every type of family which exists and claim that only those that fit your definition are true families, but in order to do that, and to make it so that only hetero-sexual families fit your definition and homo-sexuals do not, you will have to be bigotted - you won't be able to draw the line any other way - gay families will exist which if they were straight you'd be quite happy to claim them as a family. The Cardinal wishes to be bigotted - because God has told him to be so. I see no reason why the state should be so, the Cardinal should render unto Ceasar and keep out of other people's bedrooms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Waaaait I missed that bit, did EG really imply you can't have objective morality without divine threat? I don't even. Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I agree with both Chinahand and Evilgoblin. Yes, the Catholic has his morality that comes from his beliefs. He believes he is right. We CANNOT expect the Catholic to alter their position on marriage. (Although we can hope that such people ditch their absurd beliefs). I am surprised at all that a Catholic has made such a statement. Although I find his comments ridiculous, of course, I hope they are given no weight by the State. Though the State is not interfering with the Church in this case, so there is really no issue. Now gay Catholics might criticise what has been said, although I wonder how they can call themselves Catholics by doing so. Surely they must follow the beliefs of the clergy and especially the Pope. I think I do have to watch myself though because I find Catholicism so silly, ridiculous, and farcical that it hard not to just shrug aside this person's comments. But then there are so many braindead people who will take notice of what he is saying. Though assuming the State is not going to be swayed by such comments (and nobody is forcing Churches to undertake marriages), I don't really care what Catholics think about the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I can accept that the guy disagrees with gay marriage, but calling it immoral is a bit much isn't it? I find it hard to term anything that causes no harm to anyone/thing immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Does the linking together of two people's families not constitute founding a family? Does adoption not constitute founding a family? It depends on what you understand by "founding a family". I would have thought that the obvious inference is that, in the HRA, it means having children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Even if we go with that understanding, "having" does not necessarily imply procreation. It can do in one understanding, but does not have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.