Gay marriage under focus in review of family rights

moridin

hmmm, I'm pretty sure that there've been numerous denouncements from the Vatican about homosexuality, and even recently there was a Papal letter on the subject. I remember it annoyed me into not being arsed with going to mass anymore. Not that I needed much persuading anyway, but it was a catylist towards it.

Twyford

Thats super maudlin, but it hardly addresses what Breaksmay is saying. I think your attitude is indicative of the general trend, charge forward oblivious to the sensitivities of those who take a religious position. Your just as Breaksmay said - dismissive, derisive, and see the church as a pariah.

Breaksmay, opposition to the church is probably easier explained using sociological methods. Minority groups relish the role of the oppressed underdog and vilifying the perceived oppressors works wonders for group cohesion and common identity formation.

moridin

My dismissive and derisive attitude may be influenced by the Vatican guidelines of last year, which called on Catholics to campaign against the legislation of gay relationships, calling them evil, deviant, and a grave threat to society.

“There are absolutely no grounds
for considering homosexual unions to be in
any way similar or even remotely analogous
to God’s plan for marriage and family.
Marriage is holy while homosexual acts go
against the natural moral law."

“Legal recognition of homosexual unions or
placing them on the same level as marriage
would mean not only the approval of deviant
behaviour ... but would also obscure basic
values which belong to the common
inheritance of humanity.”

[edit]Oh, if you're looking for the full text of this, check out "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons"[/edit]

falteringstar

Logic is universal, in the same way as 2+2=4 is always true, the rules of argumentation will always be true. No matter who or where you are, logic is universal.

Secondly, the Catholic Church is one of the most hypocritical institutions in the world when it comes to its dealings with the gay community. It denounces any abuse of homosexuals but yet insists that it is unnatural, evil, and persist in resisting any legislation granting the smallest amount of equality. And in the mother of all ironies the churches positive yet extremely negative attitude towards homosexuality only gives people the impression that it is ok to discriminate.

No matter what your religious convictions this is not a theological argument and does not have anything to do with the Catholic or any other church.
The Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on marriage, or religion and morality for that matter, and it is the ultimate in arrogance for such people to believe that they are always right.

What we are asking for is not religious marriage but civil marriage, an institution which already exists by grace of the state not the church. You said earlier Dr. Breaksmay, that state would not endorse such a marriage because it is not in the states best interest, (would you care to explain that better please?) but I would argue that a same sex marriage is equally in the best interest of state, it would equally contribute to the states income, it would give a multi million euro boost to the wedding industry, and would contribute greatly to social stability.

“The recognition of same-sex unions on the same terms as marriage would suggest to future generations and society as whole that marriage as husband and wife, and same sex relationships are equally valid contexts for the raising of children. Scripture and the natural order clearly point out that this is not the case.”

Marriage has greatly evolved over the years, just look at the Bible to see how it was thousands of years ago, marriage was never for love hundreds of years ago but for social status and financial support. Today it has evolved beyond reproduction and social status, but has become an expression of love.
Who are you or the Catholic Church to say the institution of marriage should stop evolving and remain static as it is today?
Research in the U.S. (where gay couples are allowed to adopt) has shown that these children are equally well off as in a ‘normal’ family, and in fact they grow up better and more well rounded individuals. Same sex couples are equally capable of raising children, in fact I could argue in some cases are better, same sex marriage would provide a stable environment conducive to the healthy upbringing of a child.

ixoy

Just saw this statement in today's Irish Independant:

A senior Catholic Bishop, Dr Willie Walsh, has said he has no problem with giving civil recognition to same sex couples in Ireland. Speaking on the tenth anniversary of his installation in the diocese of Killaloe, Dr Walsh also stated that homosexual orientation is not sinful, but is simply a fact.

Admitting that the teachings of the Catholic Church may have promoted homophobia, the Bishop said he would have no difficulties with legislation to acknowledge the civil liberties and protect the partnership rights of gay couples.

Dr Walsh told Clare FM however the institution of marriage should be preserved for heterosexual couples: "I have no difficulty in relation to recognising the civil liberties of people of homosexual orientation. I do have a difficulty in relation to marriage - I do believe that marriage is a loving life-long relationship between a man and a woman, so I would have difficulty in calling it marriage."

Interesting on a few counts - he at least admits that the Church may have promoted homophobia (no really...) and admits that homosexuality is not sinful, which is somewhat against the Vatican's statement. Now his views on marriage are still, to my mind, archaic (homosexuals can have life-long relationships too...) but the fact he's spoken for civil unions is unusually progressive for a senior Church official.

LegacyUser

He recognized that to be scared with the homosexual condition is not sinful, acknowledging its sorry genetic origins. However as he purports to be Christan, Im sure he'd agree that to commit a homosexual deed is to concede to a devilish predisposition, just as a person with an inherited inflammation of the lower cortex is more likely to commit murder or violent crime.
By extension, these "partnership rights" the mad turncoat is advocating, might just as well be eligible to a parent and child or dog and cat because they merely accord legal status an cordial co-existence, and nothing that might allow for the intimacy reserved for the Husband and Wife.

Annasopra

Sorry if the below message is off topic but I'm just in a ranting mood.

Dr.Breaksmay wrote:

He recognized that to be scared with the homosexual condition is not sinful, acknowledging its sorry genetic origins. However as he purports to be Christan, Im sure he'd agree that to commit a homosexual deed is to concede to a devilish predisposition, just as a person with an inherited inflammation of the lower cortex is more likely to commit murder or violent crime.
By extension, these "partnership rights" the mad turncoat is advocating, might just as well be eligible to a parent and child or dog and cat because they merely accord legal status an cordial co-existence, and nothing that might allow for the intimacy reserved for the Husband and Wife.

I didn't know that homosexuality is a condition that a person can be scared with (scarred with????)

Since when is it a condition full stop?

What proof do you have Dr Breaksmay to say that the intimacy between 2 men or 2 women is not the same as that of between a man and a woman

I really am sick and tired of religious bigotry and the sheer narrow mindedness that the catholic church has. In fact I believe like Martin O Sullivan of the Southern Gay mens health project was right when he condemned the Catholic Churches for their hypocrytical stance on suicide and homosexuality.

http://www.gayhealthproject.com/content/templates/sgmhp.asp?articleid=68&zoneid=7

Stark

Dr.Breaksmay wrote:

He recognized that to be scared with the homosexual condition is not sinful, acknowledging its sorry genetic origins. However as he purports to be Christan, Im sure he'd agree that to commit a homosexual deed is to concede to a devilish predisposition, just as a person with an inherited inflammation of the lower cortex is more likely to commit murder or violent crime.
By extension, these "partnership rights" the mad turncoat is advocating, might just as well be eligible to a parent and child or dog and cat because they merely accord legal status an cordial co-existence, and nothing that might allow for the intimacy reserved for the Husband and Wife.

Ah very good Dr., you wouldn't perchance let me know what fool gave you that Dr. title? I wouldn't mind an easy PhD for my troubles.

just as a person with an inherited inflammation of the lower cortex is more likely to commit murder or violent crime.

So? Coincidence my Dear. Dr. Dismay.

However as he purports to be Christan, Im sure he'd agree that to commit a homosexual deed is to concede to a devilish predisposition

Devils are the ones in the red pyjamas, we're the ones in the pink pyjamas. Just thought if I came down to your level, the argument might go smoother.

and nothing that might allow for the intimacy reserved for the Husband and Wife.

Uhm, like Johnnymcg said, there's just as much intimacy between homosexual couples and there is between heterosexual couples even if you can't see it (I find it hard to appreciate the intimacy between heterosexual couples because it's alien to me, but I still acknowledge it).

falteringstar

Dr. Breaksmay if you can admit to the genetic origins of Homosexuality, and the Catholic Church believes that genes are the blueprints to Gods creation, essentially how God created men, and as (an obvious) Catholic, then you must surely agree that God created Homosexuality! And since God created it, he cant hate it, therefore neither can you, as you would say YOU are against Gods will.


To everyone else, I am truely sorry to have dropped to this unbelievably low level, what in fact i consider the lowest possible level of arguementation, religious speculation, but Im afraid it is all that feeble minded people like this seem to understand.

Now can we PLEASE move on, Dr.Breaksmay this is not a religious forum, nor are we having an argument on how god views homosexuality, or whether or not it is natural (its here, it exists, please just deal with it!)