Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

1…212213214215216218»

Comments

  • #6512
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,573 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Umm: interesting perspective, that if one of the partners was honest and upfront with the priest as to his/her non-belief in the creed of the other partners faith but was intent on being faithful within the marriage to that partner, then there would be no auto-restrictions placed on the priest by rules of the church preventing him from proceeding with the ,marriage ceremony and giving it the blessing of the church and its deity. Edit: I'm referring to heterosexual couples marrying there. On an aside, this caused me to check on the Ne Temere rule and I found it was removed from RC church law in 1970.
    There are no "auto-restrictions" of the kind you describe. You don't have to be a "believer in God" to have your marriage celebrated in or recognised by the Catholic church; just a believer in marriage. (Of course, one of the couple has to be a Catholic if they want a Catholic ceremony.)


  • #6513
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,573 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    smacl wrote: »
    The only criterion there that would would preclude gay marriage between men would be procreation, which would be the same for marriage between hetero Christians who have no intention of having kids (as previously raised), though not for gay women who could avail of artificial insemination. I'm at something of a loss to see what is objectionable about a gay marriage in the above context beyond this.
    Um, if an opposite-sex couple rock up looking for a Catholic ceremony, one of they questions they'll be asked is whether they are open to having children. And if the answer is "no, we've discussed this and we both don't want children and intend never to have them" then they will be denied a Catholic ceremony.

    What is at issue here is not your circumstances or situation, but your attitude and intention. The fact that having kids is unlikely or impossible (e.g. because one or both are infertile) is not an impediment to marriage, but the fact that you're not open to having kids is.

    This isn't quite on all fours with a same-sex couple, because of course a same-sex couple may be very open to having kids, so their attitude/intention is not the problem. But the conjugal relationship between them, the foundation of their marriage, isn't ordered towards procreation, not because of circumstances or situation, but because of the fundamental nature of the relationship itself.

    (This is not my view, you understand; it's the church's line.)
    smacl wrote: »
    I struggle to see from the first paragraph how a gay marriage would be invalid in the same sense as a bigamous marriage. Is this intent to procreate again?
    Sorry, I didn't put it well. It's as invalid as a bigamous marriage, but for different reasons. The bigamous marriage is invalid because it's not exclusive; one of the couple has another spouse. And it's fundamental to the Christian concept of marriage that marriage be exclusive. The same-sex marriage is invalid because it's not procreative (in the sense just explained), which is another fundamental characteristic of the Christian concept of marriage.


  • #6514
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,574 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    recedite wrote: »
    That, and the fact that they are both men :pac:
    In the RC doctrine marriage may only be between one man and one woman.
    Genesis 2:24 states: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

    You are 100% right,
    We clearly should follow the bible when it comes to dealing with people and marriage.
    Exodus 21:7-11

    7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.

    :rolleyes:


  • #6515
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,966 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Um, if an opposite-sex couple rock up looking for a Catholic ceremony, one of they questions they'll be asked is whether they are open to having children. And if the answer is "no, we've discussed this and we both don't want children and intend never to have them" then they will be denied a Catholic ceremony.

    What is at issue here is not your circumstances or situation, but your attitude and intention. The fact that having kids is unlikely or impossible (e.g. because one or both are infertile) is not an impediment to marriage, but the fact that you're not open to having kids is.

    This isn't quite on all fours with a same-sex couple, because of course a same-sex couple may be very open to having kids, so their attitude/intention is not the problem. But the conjugal relationship between them, the foundation of their marriage, isn't ordered towards procreation, not because of circumstances or situation, but because of the fundamental nature of the relationship itself.

    (This is not my view, you understand; it's the church's line.).

    Going off at a bit of a tangent here, where it comes to the varied LGBT human.
    On the basis set out by you, if a homosexual couple, one man and one woman [she in the process of trans-ing from female to male] were to wish to get married as a couple within the RC church, there would be no snag within the RC church and its religious ethics to it actually proceeding with the ceremony [while knowing of the future intent of the couple in respect of procreation - given the fact that the woman would be trans-ing to a man but the couple had the natural capability for procreation at the time of the marriage] as long as one was of the RC faith.

    I know this seems a convoluted question but there are Trans-men who were women and in a committed and sexual relationship with gay men and went on to procreate and give birth, making the question unconvoluted in fact.

    Edit: by auto-restriction I meant RC Church ethics as in its understanding of marriage and foundation.


  • #6516
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Going off at a bit of a tangent here, where it comes to the varied LGBT human.
    On the basis set out by you, if a homosexual couple, one man and one woman [she in the process of trans-ing from female to male] were to wish to get married as a couple within the RC church, there would be no snag within the RC church and its religious ethics to it actually proceeding with the ceremony [while knowing of the future intent of the couple in respect of procreation - given the fact that the woman would be trans-ing to a man but the couple had the natural capability for procreation at the time of the marriage] as long as one was of the RC faith.

    I know this seems a convoluted question but there are Trans-men who were women and in a committed and sexual relationship with gay men and went on to procreate and give birth, making the question unconvoluted in fact.

    Edit: by auto-restriction I meant RC Church ethics as in its understanding of marriage and foundation.
    I can't say I speak for the RCC, but for the examples you give I would be inclined to think the man in question has an attraction to the somewhat butch or dominatrix type of woman.
    And while you are describing them as a same-sex couple, the church might not describe them that way at all. Either before or after the so-called transitioning.


  • Advertisement
  • #6517
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Cabaal wrote: »
    You are 100% right,
    We clearly should follow the bible when it comes to dealing with people and marriage.:rolleyes:
    Now now, I didn't say that at all.
    I merely commented on the discussion, which was about what is allowable under RC doctrine, and what is not.


  • #6518
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,484 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Um, if an opposite-sex couple rock up looking for a Catholic ceremony, one of they questions they'll be asked is whether they are open to having children.

    If they're both OAPs would they seriously be asked that?

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #6519
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,573 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    If they're both OAPs would they seriously be asked that?
    Yup. It's on the form. The whole thing is quite legalistic, so this (in this context) would be a box-ticking exercise.


  • #6520
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,573 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Going off at a bit of a tangent here, where it comes to the varied LGBT human.
    Yes. It is a bit of a tangent. We probably shouldn't let the thread get sidetracked.


    But, since you ask . . .
    aloyisious wrote: »
    On the basis set out by you, if a homosexual couple, one man and one woman [she in the process of trans-ing from female to male] were to wish to get married as a couple within the RC church, there would be no snag within the RC church and its religious ethics to it actually proceeding with the ceremony [while knowing of the future intent of the couple in respect of procreation - given the fact that the woman would be trans-ing to a man but the couple had the natural capability for procreation at the time of the marriage] as long as one was of the RC faith.

    I know this seems a convoluted question but there are Trans-men who were women and in a committed and sexual relationship with gay men and went on to procreate and give birth, making the question unconvoluted in fact.

    Edit: by auto-restriction I meant RC Church ethics as in its understanding of marriage and foundation.
    I think the position would be this:

    1. In the Catholic view, the cis man is a man, and the trans man is a woman, both before and after transitioning.

    2. The fact that after transitioning the trans man might still be physically capable of bearing a child - i.e. still has ovaries and a womb - isn't the issue. The issue is not whether the couple can have children, but whether they are open to having children.

    3. So if the plan is definitely not to have kiddies, they're out.

    4. What if they intend that the trans man will, in fact, conceive and bear their children? As you point out, this has happened, so we can't rule out the possiblity that they might be open to it happening.

    5. In that case, their marriage is not precluded on the grounds that they lack the proper disposition with regard to procreation.

    6. But it is almost certainly going to be precluded on other grounds; namely, that the couple themselves do not see their marriage as a union between a man and a woman, so they lack the proper disposition in that respect. This is an issue regardless of their intention with regard to procreation.

    7. The other thought that occurs to me is that it is wildly unlikely that a couple so situated would seek a church wedding, and the question would certain arise, "why are they looking to be married in church?" And if the answer to that question was that they wanted to make a point about discrimination or exclusion (i.e. they ask in the expectation of being refused) that too would probably be regarded as evidenced of not having a proper disposition.


  • #6521
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,966 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Yes. It is a bit of a tangent. We probably shouldn't let the thread get sidetracked.


    But, since you ask . . .


    I think the position would be this:

    2. The fact that after transitioning the trans man might still be physically capable of bearing a child - i.e. still has ovaries and a womb - isn't the issue. The issue is not whether the couple can have children, but whether they are open to having children.

    3. So if the plan is definitely not to have kiddies, they're out.

    4. What if they intend that the trans man will, in fact, conceive and bear their children?

    5. In that case, their marriage is not precluded on the grounds that they lack the proper disposition with regard to procreation.

    6. But it is almost certainly going to be precluded on other grounds; namely, that the couple themselves do not see their marriage as a union between a man and a woman, so they lack the proper disposition in that respect. This is an issue regardless of their intention with regard to procreation.

    7. The other thought that occurs to me is that it is wildly unlikely that a couple so situated would seek a church wedding, and the question would certain arise, "why are they looking to be married in church?" And if the answer to that question was that they wanted to make a point about discrimination or exclusion (i.e. they ask in the expectation of being refused) that too would probably be regarded as evidenced of not having a proper disposition.

    Ta for the reply, it enables me to think further outside the box, extends my view.


  • Advertisement
  • #6522
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    5. In that case, their marriage is not precluded on the grounds that they lack the proper disposition with regard to procreation.

    6. But it is almost certainly going to be precluded on other grounds; namely, that the couple themselves do not see their marriage as a union between a man and a woman, so they lack the proper disposition in that respect. This is an issue regardless of their intention with regard to procreation.

    7. The other thought that occurs to me is that it is wildly unlikely that a couple so situated would seek a church wedding, and the question would certain arise, "why are they looking to be married in church?" And if the answer to that question was that they wanted to make a point about discrimination or exclusion (i.e. they ask in the expectation of being refused) that too would probably be regarded as evidenced of not having a proper disposition.
    Is this concept of the proper disposition set out in official rules or guidelines somewhere?

    Or is it something optional, or something that might be open to interpretation for an individual priest?


  • #6523
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,573 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    recedite wrote: »
    Is this concept of the proper disposition set out in official rules or guidelines somewhere?

    Or is it something optional, or something that might be open to interpretation for an individual priest?
    Canon 843 sets out the right to receive the sacraments (including marriage): "Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them."

    No doubt there's be abundant rules, guidance, academic commentary and case law on what constitutes the proper disposition for marriage and what doesn't, but I'm not really on top of all that.

    In the first instance it's a matter for the individual parish priest, since he's the one a couple will approach to marry them. But he has to conform to whatever guidance and directions on the subject have been given by his bishop, and if he's still in any doubt he should (and probably would) consult his bishop. If he refuses to marry the couple and the couple are not happy with that, they can go to the bishop themselves and ask him to look into and review the matter.


  • #6524
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Canon 843 sets out the right to receive the sacraments (including marriage): "Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them."
    Seems very vague to me.
    I can't imagine a priest noticing a bit of a moustache on the upper lip of the bride-to be and saying "I'm not sure you're of the proper disposition for this, young lady. Have you been taking testosterone injections, or what?"


  • #6525
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,903 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cabaal wrote: »
    You are 100% right,
    We clearly should follow the bible when it comes to dealing with people and marriage.

    :rolleyes:

    Thankfully those days are almost gone. Religious weddings are fading so fast. Humanism is the way forward now.


  • #6526
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    The Nal wrote: »
    Thankfully those days are almost gone. Religious weddings are fading so fast. Humanism is the way forward now.
    Humanism seems like organised religion, but without the God bit.
    They are certainly coining it in the weddings market though. Easy money.


  • #6527
    martingriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,392 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    recedite wrote: »
    Humanism seems like organised religion, but without the God bit.
    They are certainly coining it in the weddings market though. Easy money.


    As someone who recently went to the first humanist weddings there is nothing organised about the wedding or it as a"religon"


  • #6528
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    martingriff wrote: »
    As someone who recently went to the first humanist weddings there is nothing organised about the wedding or it as a"religon"
    They don't organise weddings, the cleric just shows up at the venue, officiates over the wedding vows, collects the cash, and leaves.


    Outside of the wedding market though, humanists sometimes have organised meetings on Sundays where they gather and sing fake hymns.


  • #6529
    martingriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,392 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    recedite wrote: »
    They don't organise weddings, the cleric just shows up at the venue, officiates over the wedding vows, collects the cash, and leaves.


    Outside of the wedding market though, humanists sometimes have organised meetings on Sundays where they gather and sing fake hymns.

    I know many types of groups that do that would not be calling them "religions"


  • #6530
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,966 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Is there anyone on this thread keeping an eye on Westminster re the prorogue; will have any effect on the apparent natural changing of the laws on civil marriage and abortion in NI, like halting the changes in their tracks or has the train left the station with no stops ahead? I'm assuming that there is no changing the inevitable, except a slight slowing of the timetable.


  • #6531
    santana75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,358 ✭✭✭santana75




    Saw this the other day. Really interesting testimony. Got his book after watching this video and found it an amazing story.


  • Advertisement
  • #6532
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Is there anyone on this thread keeping an eye on Westminster re the prorogue; will have any effect on the apparent natural changing of the laws on civil marriage and abortion in NI, like halting the changes in their tracks or has the train left the station with no stops ahead? I'm assuming that there is no changing the inevitable, except a slight slowing of the timetable.
    That's a big assumption. Besides, that particular threat made in Westminster to override the NI assembly only applies if Stormont remains dysfunctional.


Advertisement