Church war against same sex marriage: UK

L.Jenkins

The Roman Catholic Church is planning to enlist the support of more than a million regular whorshippers in opposition to British government plans for same-sex marriage.

I don't take too much issue with the opposition, as it was expected to be honest, but one Cardinal attacked the proposals in what appears to be a vote of support:

At the weekend Cardinal Keith O' 8rien, the most senior Catholic cleric in Scotland accused the coalition of trying to " redefine reality" and branding the proposals a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right".

As long as we continue to fight for what should be universally given, I don't see any of church going opposition laying down either until someone wins. As for the Cardinals comments, I wish I could say I'm not suprised.

Quoted in todays Irish Indo, bottom of page 25. Sorry for not having a links as I'm on my phone.

DubArk

Cameron has always backed the idea of marriage for same sex couples and has made no secret of it. As this is a Civil Marriage and not a religious based legal proposition, I can’t see the Churches concerns been adhered to. I always knew that once civil partnership was permitted that full recognition of same sex marriages was on the cards. We will follow too; it’s only a matter of time.

Dark Chocolate

I was confused over Cameron's statement "I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative, I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative"

It's hardly within the realms of typical Conservative family values they traditionally represent, is it?

floggg

Dark Chocolate wrote: »

I was confused over Cameron's statement "I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative, I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative"

It's hardly within the realms of typical Conservative family values they traditionally represent, is it?

Its s entirely within the realm of typical family values. The only departure is they are embracing the opportunity of everybody to share and pursue those family values equally in the eyes of the law.

Dark Chocolate

I didn't mean that gay marriage is not within the realms or compatible with family values, but my point is made in the context that gay marriage and homosexuality as a whole, is total anathema to those whose politics is conservative. It's very much seen as a left wing/liberal state of being. There are many who come under that conservative heading, not least the Catholic church, who, as expected, are sticking their oar in.

baby and crumble

I think there's a difference in economic conservatives and moral conservatives. Moral conservatives would have a problem with gay civil marriage, but not necessarily economic conservatives.

Dark Chocolate

Maybe not necessarily. But where's the divide?

floggg

I think the point he is making is that conservative politics has traditionally emphasised the importance of a stable family unit from social and economic perspectives.

If you believe in conservative family values you believe that this form of family life should be encouraged and facilitated as much as possible - including by allowing LGBT families to enjoy the protections of marriage.

The alternative is to force families into less secure and non traditional family units which conservatives see as undesirable.

Their position reflects the acceptance of many conservatives (and society more generally) of LGBT equality. Once the accepted this, it would be illogical for them to advocate that LGBT be denied marriage rights which they otherwise believe to be the ideal family type.

Azure_sky

Dark Chocolate wrote: »

I was confused over Cameron's statement "I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative, I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative"

It's hardly within the realms of typical Conservative family values they traditionally represent, is it?

Simple. He's a politician and 95% of politicians would sell their Grannies soul for a vote.

hotmail.com

A single and celebate elderly man, that wears a dress, preaching about marriage...

Enough said.

Pacifist Pigeon

Why can't the RCC just mind their own business?! Seriously. They are the strongest force in Europe today against gay marriage and probably the only large organised group in Europe (apart from Islam) that tries to cause hassle for gay people in their every day lives. It's sickening, to be honest. I get crap through my door (Alive! Magazine) all the time with this sort of intolerant nonsense in it. They won't win, they'll never win - the will of the people will prevail whether they like it or not. They're a dying force barely clutching on for survival.

Their one pathetic argument against gay marriage, i.e., the "definition" of marriage, is fallacious and doesn't recognise the fact that language is what the people make of it - not what they say it means. Their "reasonable" arguments against gay marriage are just a guise for their consistent homophobia.

Pacifist Pigeon

Dark Chocolate wrote: »

I was confused over Cameron's statement "I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative, I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative"

It's hardly within the realms of typical Conservative family values they traditionally represent, is it?

Well, I think it's against family values not to support gay marriage in the first place, so perhaps that where he's coming from.

L1011

Dark Chocolate wrote: »

I was confused over Cameron's statement "I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative, I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative"

It's hardly within the realms of typical Conservative family values they traditionally represent, is it?

Could be the Dutch approach - give people as much rope as they want (in the eyes of the religious). A lot of the liberalism there comes from the churches there wanting to ensure that the unworthy made damn sure to show they were

BattleCorp

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Why can't the RCC just mind their own business?! Seriously. They are the strongest force in Europe today against gay marriage and probably the only large organised group in Europe (apart from Islam) that tries to cause hassle for gay people in their every day lives. It's sickening, to be honest. I get crap through my door (Alive! Magazine) all the time with this sort of intolerant nonsense in it. They won't win, they'll never win - the will of the people will prevail whether they like it or not. They're a dying force barely clutching on for survival.

Their one pathetic argument against gay marriage, i.e., the "definition" of marriage, is fallacious and doesn't recognise the fact that language is what the people make of it - not what they say it means. Their "reasonable" arguments against gay marriage are just a guise for their consistent homophobia.

I'm not taking sides here, I am all for gay marriage. But why shouldn't the Catholic Church be allowed to support their beliefs just because they contradict your beliefs. Gay people are allowed to promote and campaign in support of gay marriage. The Catholic Church disagree with that, does that mean that they should shut up and go away. While I sympathise with gay people in the fact that they don't have the same rights as straight people, that doesn't mean that one section of the straight community should be made shut up and go away.

Pacifist Pigeon, you say you are sickened by some of the literature. I can tell you that some people are sickened by the sight of some members of the gay community going around with the arse cut out of their trousers in a gay pride parade (which I myself have seen).

I'm not taking sides, I am just pointing out that if you want to be allowed to promote your side of the arguement for gay marriage/rights, the other side of the table has to be allowed to voice their opinions too.

Annasopra

In all fairness Alive magazine is actually not reflective of the vast majority of Catholics in this country and doesn't really speak for the church. It's a publication by the extreme political right within the church - not a church mainstream publication.

Pacifist Pigeon

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not taking sides here, I am all for gay marriage. But why shouldn't the Catholic Church be allowed to support their beliefs just because they contradict your beliefs. Gay people are allowed to promote and campaign in support of gay marriage. The Catholic Church disagree with that, does that mean that they should shut up and go away. While I sympathise with gay people in the fact that they don't have the same rights as straight people, that doesn't mean that one section of the straight community should be made shut up and go away.

In my eyes, anyone who wishes to hinder the rights of others ought to just shut up and go away. There are limits to what might be considered a valid argument. No-one should have the right to take away or prevent others from getting equal rights -- and that's not just gay rights. Democracy ought to be limited to unalienable individual rights. I don't think the voice of the majority should be allowed to curve or prevent individual rights.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Pacifist Pigeon, you say you are sickened by some of the literature. I can tell you that some people are sickened by the sight of some members of the gay community going around with the arse cut out of their trousers in a gay pride parade (which I myself have seen).

I'm not taking sides, I am just pointing out that if you want to be allowed to promote your side of the arguement for gay marriage/rights, the other side of the table has to be allowed to voice their opinions too.

This is about fighting for individual rights. The RCC are trying to prevent people from getting their rights, and this has always been the case with the RCC. The RCC were opposed to homosexuality being decriminalised - the organisation is homophobic, pure and simple. I'm not suggesting that individual catholics are, rather most of those who promote or are actively involved in the Church (clergy, administration, etc.).

Your point about gay pride is nonsense. Gay pride parades started as civil rights marches, they're protests and are completely justifiable as LGBT people in Ireland are still fighting for their rights and fighting against social stigma. Does the fact that you saw someone wear something indecent hinder your rights? Did you see it as a gesture of contempt for your rights? There is a huge difference between a rag like Alive! Magazine, which only promotes hatred, intolerance and denial of individual rights, and Gay Pride, which promotes equality and individual rights. That's exactly why newspapers (and other literature) like Alive! Magazine sicken me.

Organisations like the RCC want it all their way and want everyone, including the law, to be at the behest of what they feel to be morally right. This is completely different to what organisations that push for individual rights try to promote -- they promote the right of the individual to make choices about how they think they should live their lives rather than being at the behest of a moral authority.

Pacifist Pigeon

mango salsa wrote: »

In all fairness Alive magazine is actually not reflective of the vast majority of Catholics in this country and doesn't really speak for the church. It's a publication by the extreme political right within the church - not a church mainstream publication.

Yes, it's not reflective of a vast majority of Catholics in Ireland (practicing or lapsed), but it does reflect official church doctrine very well and the position of the pontiff and the hierarchical. I guess that says a lot about the relationship between the Church and its followers. The only difference between articles written in Alive! Magazine and official Church documents is the adjectives used; anything official would be sugar-coated to suit political correctness, but it's essential the same message.

Aurongroove

I happen to be gay. but it doesn't change the fact that if I though gay marriage was wrong or immoral I would fight against it.

The only reason I'm pro gay marriage is because it is almost definitely, irrefutably no harm to society and should be seen as no different to "normal" marriage.
it just doesn't make sense for there not to be gay marriage except for (and that's a big 'except') that religion has an issue with it and since religion has taken over all the marriage-ing duties (but it's still a function of the state really), then no marriage for gay people until the small print is sorted out.
but then you see atheist can marry (i.e. not in a church) so what's the problem? is homosexuality still illegal?

On a scale of Logic it just beggars sense:
Marriage, in a disestablished state is a matter of the state (and state only),
we are a disestablished state,
the state accepts homosexuality (i.e. homosexuality isn't a crime).

Why then can't the state marry a homosexual couple?

I mean if it was the church which was the only blockade, then atheist couples wouldn't be able to get married either, but they can.

Pacifist Pigeon

Aurongroove wrote: »

I happen to be gay. but it doesn't change the fact that if I though gay marriage was wrong or immoral I would fight against it.

The only reason I'm pro gay marriage is because it is almost definitely, irrefutably no harm to society and should be seen as no different to "normal" marriage.
it just doesn't make sense for there not to be gay marriage except for (and that's a big 'except') that religion has an issue with it and since religion has taken over all the marriage-ing duties (but it's still a function of the state really), then no marriage for gay people until the small print is sorted out.
but then you see atheist can marry (i.e. not in a church) so what's the problem? is homosexuality still illegal?

On a scale of Logic it just beggars sense:
Marriage, in a disestablished state is a matter of the state (and state only),
we are a disestablished state,
the state accepts homosexuality (i.e. homosexuality isn't a crime).

Why then can't the state marry a homosexual couple?

I mean if it was the church which was the only blockade, then atheist couples wouldn't be able to get married either, but they can.

Anything that is an official matter of the state is, by definition, is established, not disestablish. In an ideal world, no marriage should be recognised by the state as it is really a culture custom. To justify why, I'd argue that marriage is merely a declaration/oath/covenant and recognition of mutual commitment and love between two individuals in the eyes of their family, friends and society. If marriage wasn't a state issue, gay marriage would never come into conflict with the Church unless the couple wanted their marriage to be recognised by the Church.

Aurongroove

I meant disestablished as in 'successfully achieved disestablishment' (to separate a church from governmental association or status)

but otherwise I take your point.

For me however marriage is pointless if it's not recognized by a body of power such as a church or a state (preferable a state). If this wasn't the case anyone could just get married whenever they wished just like in the old days, and just like in the old days you would wind up with exactly the same sort of problems they ended up with (poor records, accidental polygamy, marriage denial, or false claims and cons, random people appointing themselves marrying authorities etc)

So for me it's governmentally recognized or nothing. (what a lovely sentence, lol)


And just to reiterate my point was marriage indeed doesn't come into conflict with the church, since gay marriage is a state affair and church is not.

actually now that i think about it, I'm not actually certain Ireland has undergone disestablishment...{worried face}

Annasopra

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

In my eyes, anyone who wishes to hinder the rights of others ought to just shut up and go away. There are limits to what might be considered a valid argument. No-one should have the right to take away or prevent others from getting equal rights -- and that's not just gay rights. Democracy ought to be limited to unalienable individual rights. I don't think the voice of the majority should be allowed to curve or prevent individual rights.

I thought that you believed in freedom of speech. You can't say on the one hand that you believe in freedom of speech and then on the other that you don't. Your point about a list of inalienable rights is also not workable because rights often conflict with each other - e.g. the right to choose an abortion versus the right to life, the right of a church to express it's viewpoint through freedom of speech versus the rights of groups it discriminates against. You can't just have 1 list of human rights. Philosophically there will always be conflict about the definitions of rights and this is a good thing. As regards your point about 'individual rights' I would totally reject this idea. The idea of marriage equality is at it's core about state sponsored discrimination because of their group identity not because they are individuals.

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

This is about fighting for individual rights

It's not. I know lots of people who are gay who personally oppose marriage equality but fight for it for others. This is a social movement fighting for the rights of a group of people.

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Gay pride parades started as civil rights marches, they're protests and are completely justifiable as LGBT people in Ireland are still fighting for their rights and fighting against social stigma.

Exactly. A social movement of solidarity - not a group of unconnected individuals