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)

Options
24567…220

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    qrrgprgua
    Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭qrrgprgua


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Certainly not all Christians as you implied. His viewpoint has no baring on the beliefs of Non-Roman Catholic Christians some of whom actually see him as the anti-Christ.

    OK. On the Subject of Homosexual acts and the proposition of Gay Marriage the Pope reinforces core Christian beliefs that most Christian church's hold.

    Even Ian Paisley will agree with the Pope that Gay Marriage is wrong.

    Its not a teaching the Pope invented. Its teaching that was always in the church.


  • Options
    #33
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    philologos wrote: »
    Jesus preaches (..........)in Scripture.

    So its perfectly ok to quote Leviticus when it suits. With ye now.


  • Options
    #34
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Given the names mentioned already, are you suggesting that public figures like Obama and Gilmore should not express their opinions? When Obama expressed his personal opinion supporting gay marriage I was happy to hear it. (That I happened to largely agree with what he said should be beside the point). I am also happy that he has been granted the freedom to express his opinion just like any citizen in a democracy.

    Obama is the democratically elected head of State charged with protecting a constitution that clearly separates church and State and enshrines equality and civil liberties for all U.S. citizens

    Gilmore is a democratically elected member of the Dail charged with representation and ensuring equality under the law or all of the citizens of Ireland regardless of their race, religion or sexual orientation.

    Both men we commenting on a debate occurring within the jurisdictions they were elected to govern and within which they can and do enact legislation.

    The Pope is an unelected absolute ruler of a multinational organisation who claims to speak for God himself and whether one agrees with him or not, his position is one of international influence and his 'opinion' (he is after all meant to be infallible when it comes to matter of doctrine and an anti-Gay marriage stance is official RCC policy) does carry weight.


  • Options
    #35
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nodin wrote: »
    So its perfectly ok to quote Leviticus when it suits. With ye now.

    I'm simply explaining how your understanding of what Christians have historically believed about the Torah is mistaken.

    Christians believe that the Old Covenant was binding on the people of Israel. It was an agreement made to the people of Israel largely on Sinai as they had been delivered from the Egyptians.

    Christians believe that God created a new covenant agreement with both Jews and Gentiles through Jesus Christ. That covenant has different implications to the former.

    If we are looking to something like how uncleanness was dealt with in the Old Covenant agreement with the Israelites, we also need to consider what the new covenant agreement which is binding on all Christians has to say on the subject.

    Jesus affirms that sexual immorality is wrong, as do the Apostles. So it is for that reason why by and large Christians hold to the idea that sexuality is to be kept within a marriage which is the union of a man and a woman Biblically.

    If you want to argue about what Christians believe, perhaps you should make some time to get more familiar with what Christians believe first?


  • Options
    #36
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    It exists at a number of levels. Naturally a gay couple can't have a child. A Gay couple cuts out a Mother figure or a Father figure to a Child if they adopt.

    Marriage from a Christian point of view will always be between a man and a woman who go on to form a Family.

    How come women don't compete against men in the Olympics or in football? Because Men and Women are different. You can't negate biology.

    Marriage is basic human reality.

    So does this mean a couple where one member is infertile cannot marry? What about a post-menopausal woman - can she marry? Or a man who contracted Mumps as a teenager leading to infertility? Or a woman who had to have a hysterectomy? Or a man who had testicular cancer?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    qrrgprgua
    Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭qrrgprgua


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The Pope is an unelected absolute ruler of a multinational organisation who claims to speak for God himself and whether one agrees with him or not, his position is one of international influence and his 'opinion' (he is after all meant to be infallible when it comes to matter of doctrine and an anti-Gay marriage stance is official RCC policy) does carry weight.

    The Teaching of Marriage is not a Dogma the Pope invented ex-Cathedra.

    Its a teaching that has been held for the last 2000 years.

    The Pope is elected. But not matter which Pope we have the teaching is the exact same. The Pope is standing up for our faith.


  • Options
    #38
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm simply explaining how your understanding of what Christians have historically believed about the Torah is mistaken.

    ....

    A straight "yes" or "no" on the question of whether or not it was legitamate to quote leviticus against homosexuality would have sufficed.


  • Options
    #39
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Another example of attempting to influence legislation is this particular case which was extremely unethical at the same time..
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/25/catholic-church-schools-gay-marriage


  • Options
    #40
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,842 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    Marriage from a Christian point of view will always be between a man and a woman who go on to form a Family.
    So infertile people can't get married?


  • Options
    #41
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nodin wrote: »
    A straight "yes" or "no" on the question of whether or not it was legitamate to quote leviticus against homosexuality would have sufficed.

    I think it's worth explaining why you're mistaken.

    People can quote Leviticus, but they should do so considering the actual context of the passage within the Bible. Since Jesus and the Apostles affirm previous teaching concerning sexuality then yes, it's entirely legitimate.

    Christians under the New Covenant see uncleanness as the sin that comes from within (Mark 7). Therefore that's how Christians understand uncleanness.

    However, if you asked me if the penalty for sin is death in the New Covenant, I would say no, even though it was in Ancient Israel. Why? - Jesus died in my place on the cross so I can be forgiven, I should desire the same for all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    qrrgprgua
    Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭qrrgprgua


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    Another example of attempting to influence legislation is this particular case which was extremely unethical at the same time..
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/25/catholic-church-schools-gay-marriage

    Its not unethical to teach your children your faith. Its not unethical for your Children to live their Faith.

    There is not age limit on faith. What if tomorrow my wife and I were killed and (god forbid) my Children were put up for Adoption. The way Gay Marriage is going these couples want equal rights on all levels, including being able to Adopt. I would never allow my kids to be raised by a gay couple. A child should (if possible) have the best environment and that is to have a Father and a Mother if possible. A Gay couple can't provide the best environment to raise a Child.


  • Options
    #43
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    philologos wrote: »
    I think it's worth explaining why you're mistaken.

    People can quote Leviticus, but they should do so considering the actual context of the passage within the Bible. Since Jesus and the Apostles affirm previous teaching concerning sexuality then yes, it's entirely legitimate.

    Christians under the New Covenant see uncleanness as the sin that comes from within (Mark 7). Therefore that's how Christians understand uncleanness.

    However, if you asked me if the penalty for sin is death in the New Covenant, I would say no, even though it was in Ancient Israel. Why? - Jesus died in my place on the cross so I can be forgiven, I should desire the same for all.


    So its yes but no but yes. Grand.


  • Options
    #44
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    The Teaching of Marriage is not a Dogma the Pope invented ex-Cathedra.

    Its a teaching that has been held for the last 2000 years.

    The Pope is elected. But not matter which Pope we have the teaching is the exact same. The Pope is standing up for our faith.

    May I direct your attention to this:
    http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

    and this:
    http://www.scatoday.net/node/14703

    and this:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142905/Civil-partnership-medieval-style-In-days-sex-marriage-Christian-rite.html

    and this:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/gay-marriage-goes-way-back/

    and this;
    http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/may/09/marriage-myth/

    and this:
    http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/Homosexuality_in_the_Middle_Ages.htm


  • Options
    #45
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    Its not unethical to teach your children your faith. Its not unethical for your Children to live their Faith.

    There is not age limit on faith. What if tomorrow my wife and I were killed and (god forbid) my Children were put up for Adoption. The way Gay Marriage is going these couples want equal rights on all levels, including being able to Adopt. I would never allow my kids to be raised by a gay couple. A child should (if possible) have the best environment and that is to have a Father and a Mother if possible. A Gay couple can't provide the best environment to raise a Child.

    It is unethical to utilise students for a campaign against marriage, most of whom don't have an opinion on the matter. There's a reason why this provoked a government investigation into the matter as you are not supposed to use a classroom to campaign on political issues.


  • Options
    #46
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nodin wrote: »
    So its yes but no but yes. Grand.

    It's yes. It's entirely legitimate to look to Leviticus along with other scripture in respect to sexuality. One just has to consider the context. For the record, I think there's quite a lot in Leviticus that is useful in determining God's character.


  • Options
    #47
    qrrgprgua
    Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭qrrgprgua


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    It is unethical to utilise students for a campaign against marriage, most of whom don't have an opinion on the matter. There's a reason why this provoked a government investigation into the matter as you are not supposed to use a classroom to campaign on political issues.


    That's it.. Its not just a Political issue. Its a deeply Religious Issue. They can investigate all they like. If you ask any Child in Ireland on the Street what is marriage you know what the answer will be.

    I have no problem with 2 men or 2 women living together. Or have civil rights to protect their relationship, tax, inheritance etc.. But to say that a Gay couples relationship can be called a marriage and is equal to a Normal Male/Female marriage is wrong. Its not.


  • Options
    #48
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    philologos wrote: »
    It's yes. It's entirely legitimate to look to Leviticus along with other scripture in respect to sexuality. One just has to consider the context.

    and what exactly is the context as it appears to me and many others that the context is cherry pick the bits that support the viewpoint one is espousing and ignore all the other bits.


  • Options
    #49
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    That's it.. Its not just a Political issue. Its a deeply Religious Issue. They can investigate all they like. If you ask any Child in Ireland on the Street what is marriage you know what the answer will be.

    I have no problem with 2 men or 2 women living together. Or have civil rights to protect their relationship, tax, inheritance etc.. But to say that a Gay couples relationship can be called a marriage and is equal to a Normal Male/Female marriage is wrong. Its not.


    ....but marriage is not the property of religion. You can say that whatever church can refuse to perform the ceremony, but they've no right to stop anyone else.


  • Options
    #50
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    That's it.. Its not just a Political issue. Its a deeply Religious Issue. They can investigate all they like. If you ask any Child in Ireland on the Street what is marriage you know what the answer will be.

    I have no problem with 2 men or 2 women living together. Or have civil rights to protect their relationship, tax, inheritance etc.. But to say that a Gay couples relationship can be called a marriage and is equal to a Normal Male/Female marriage is wrong. Its not.

    So would you have a problem with a civil union for same-sex couples that grants completely the same rights and responsibilities as marriage but is not called marriage?


  • Options
    #51
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    That's it.. Its not just a Political issue. Its a deeply Religious Issue. They can investigate all they like. If you ask any Child in Ireland on the Street what is marriage you know what the answer will be.

    I have no problem with 2 men or 2 women living together. Or have civil rights to protect their relationship, tax, inheritance etc.. But to say that a Gay couples relationship can be called a marriage and is equal to a Normal Male/Female marriage is wrong. Its not.

    They were using them to petition on government policy, that's a political issue.... You can't produce one reason why it shouldn't be allowed, there's nobody forcing a straight person to marry a person of the same sex. It would be only continuation of previous legislation for equal rights that have been going on over the course of a couple of centuries.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    and what exactly is the context as it appears to me and many others that the context is cherry pick the bits that support the viewpoint one is espousing and ignore all the other bits.

    Again misunderstanding very clearly that the Bible has two covenant agreements. One with the nation of Israel which has now been fulfilled.

    Another for both Jews and Gentiles through Jesus Christ.

    There are also other covenants between Adam and God, Noah and God, and Abraham and God.

    Christianity has been clear about this since its beginning (Hebrews chapter 8 for example), and Judaism has been clear that this would happen when the Messiah came (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

    The Bible needs to be considered as a whole, and passages that are within it need to be considered in terms of where they are in the narrative. That's just good reading of a text.


  • Options
    #53
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    philologos wrote: »
    Again misunderstanding very clearly that the Bible has two covenant agreement. One with the nation of Israel which has now been fulfilled.

    Another for both Jews and Gentiles through Jesus Christ.

    There are also other covenants between Adam and God, Noah and God, and Abraham and God.

    Christianity has been clear about this since its beginning (Hebrews chapter 8 for example), and Judaism has been clear that this would happen when the Messiah came (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

    The Bible needs to be considered as a whole, and passages that are within it need to be considered in terms of where they are in the narrative. That's just good reading of a text.

    You haven't answered my question. Exactly how does one determine which parts of the text are valid and which can be ignored? Why is it acceptable to quote Leviticus to support an anti-gay 'lifestyle' stance but ignore the same text when it refers to beard trimming, diet and composition of fabrics in clothing?

    If Christianity was as clear as you maintain it is there would not be the need for me and many others to query exactly how ye determine which bits of the Bible are considered relevant and which bits arn't.


  • Options
    #54
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    You haven't answered my question. Exactly how does one determine which parts of the text are valid and which can be ignored? Why is it acceptable to quote Leviticus to support an anti-gay 'lifestyle' stance but ignore the same text when it refers to beard trimming, diet and composition of fabrics in clothing?

    If Christianity was as clear as you maintain it is there would not be the need for me and many others to query exactly how ye determine which bits of the Bible are considered relevant and which bits arn't.

    It's not about ignoring the text. It's about reading it correctly and in its proper context.

    Christians from the very beginning have read the Old Testament in the light of Christ (2 Corinthians 3) and have always argued that the Old Covenant agreement simply points towards Jesus, and His death and resurrection for mankind on the cross.

    All Christians do in respect to the Old Testament is say, since Jesus has come, and in consideration of His impact, let's read previous Scripture in that light. The Gospels and the Apostle's writings are clear that Christianity is the fulfilment of Judaism, and that a new covenant agreement has been established with all mankind.

    That's Christianity 101.


  • Options
    #55
    token56
    Registered Users Posts: 2,601 ✭✭✭token56


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....but marriage is not the property of religion. You can say that whatever church can refuse to perform the ceremony, but they've no right to stop anyone else.

    This right here is the crux of the issue. No one wants to/should want to force any religious organisation to perform any ceremony that they dont want to. But marriage is not a term owned by any religion as stated above. What gay marriage deals with is the definition of marriage by the state in the eyes of a secular nation like Ireland. In Ireland until 2004 marriage by the state was not defined as being between a man and women and the only relevant part of the constitution was the infamous part of Article 41
    The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack

    So in the Irish Constitution marriage is intrinsically linked with family. Until the civil registration act in 2004 the definition of a marriage and therefore family was simply interpreted to be that with heterosexual couples until this was put into law. But what is the purpose of the family and how is a family defined? That is the most divisive issue here.

    Now families dont have to contain kids but for the most part they do and most people would agree are important to the purpose of a family and is key to the argument here. So are kids in a family with a heterosexual couple better off in some way than in a family with homosexual couples? Religious organisations would obvious be inclined to sway towards one side but from an objective point of view what is the answer? How is better even measured here and what are the criteria for evaluating how good a family is? Research is being done in trying to evaluate this and results certainly seem to indicate there not being much of a difference. There is quite a large body of work in the area so my conclusion is based on a general sifting of them thus far. But for those interested even have a look at the original paper below and a couple of other relevant ones citing it.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&cites=6671784867694423843&scipsc=

    So in a secular society the question becomes is there any reason to prefer one definition of family over another. Because if not and homosexual families are equally as good as heterosexual families then homosexual couples are being discriminated against by not being allowed marry and create a family. The issue of whether or not a couple can actually procreate themselves to create a family with kids is a straw-man.


  • Options
    #56
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    If he had expressed the opinion as Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, private citizen of Germany I would not have an the slightest issue but he did not. In the guise of Pope Benedict XVI as leader of a major world religion he expressed an official Roman Catholic policy to an audience of international diplomats.

    Do you understand the difference between the man as private individual and the man as figurehead and representative?

    Doesn't make a blind bit of difference.

    It is entirely legitimate for a head of religion, or a head of State for that matter, to express their opinion on this issue.

    Barack Obama expressed his opinion, but only hysterical conspiracy theorists see that as somehow dictating what other people do.


  • Options
    #57
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Nodin wrote: »
    So its perfectly ok to quote Leviticus when it suits. With ye now.


    That is nothing like what philologos said. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #58
    Snappy Smurf
    Registered Users Posts: 194 ✭✭Snappy Smurf


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The Pope can speak only for Roman Catholics.
    Pope speaks for and on behalf of Christ in matters of faith and morals.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    So is your definition of marriage that is exists only to facilitate procreation?
    Yeah pretty much. Marriage is for the procreation of children and the good of spouses.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Obama is the democratically elected head of State charged with protecting a constitution that clearly separates church and State and enshrines equality and civil liberties for all U.S. citizens

    Gilmore is a democratically elected member of the Dail charged with representation and ensuring equality under the law or all of the citizens of Ireland regardless of their race, religion or sexual orientation.

    Both men we commenting on a debate occurring within the jurisdictions they were elected to govern and within which they can and do enact legislation.

    The Pope is an unelected absolute ruler of a multinational organisation who claims to speak for God himself and whether one agrees with him or not, his position is one of international influence and his 'opinion' (he is after all meant to be infallible when it comes to matter of doctrine and an anti-Gay marriage stance is official RCC policy) does carry weight.
    Pope is as free as others in earthly terms to give his opinion and also to propagate Christian doctrine. Or would you say he hasn't? Interesting..
    Corkfeen wrote: »
    It is unethical to utilise students for a campaign against marriage, most of whom don't have an opinion on the matter. There's a reason why this provoked a government investigation into the matter as you are not supposed to use a classroom to campaign on political issues.
    Was this like Catholic instruction in a Catholic school? What's the issue here?
    token56 wrote: »
    This right here is the crux of the issue. No one wants to/should want to force any religious organisation to perform any ceremony that they dont want to. But marriage is not a term owned by any religion as stated above. What gay marriage deals with is the definition of marriage by the state in the eyes of a secular nation like Ireland. In Ireland until 2004 marriage by the state was not defined as being between a man and women and the only relevant part of the constitution was the infamous part of Article 41

    So in the Irish Constitution marriage is intrinsically linked with family. Until the civil registration act in 2004 the definition of a marriage and therefore family was simply interpreted to be that with heterosexual couples until this was put into law. But what is the purpose of the family and how is a family defined? That is the most divisive issue here.

    Now families dont have to contain kids but for the most part they do and most people would agree are important to the purpose of a family and is key to the argument here. So are kids in a family with a heterosexual couple better off in some way than in a family with homosexual couples? Religious organisations would obvious be inclined to sway towards one side but from an objective point of view what is the answer? How is better even measured here and what are the criteria for evaluating how good a family is? Research is being done in trying to evaluate this and results certainly seem to indicate there not being much of a difference. There is quite a large body of work in the area so my conclusion is based on a general sifting of them thus far. But for those interested even have a look at the original paper below and a couple of other relevant ones citing it.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&cites=6671784867694423843&scipsc=

    So in a secular society the question becomes is there any reason to prefer one definition of family over another. Because if not and homosexual families are equally as good as heterosexual families then homosexual couples are being discriminated against by not being allowed marry and create a family. The issue of whether or not a couple can actually procreate themselves to create a family with kids is a straw-man.

    No it's not a straw man. If I buy a van and start calling myself the ice cream man, if I can't produce real ice cream I am deluding myself.

    The day two men or two women can make baby WITHOUT scientific intervention and a third person, then we can call it marriage.


  • Options
    #59
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Nodin wrote: »
    A straight "yes" or "no" on the question of whether or not it was legitamate to quote leviticus against homosexuality would have sufficed.

    Look, you're on the Christianity Forum - the purpose of which is to discuss Christian belief. If you don't like people discussing Christian beliefs in words of more than one syllable then perhaps this is not the Forum for you.

    God forbid that we all abandon any kind of nuanced or thoughtful discussion and simply resort to simplistic grandstanding.


  • Options
    #60
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    You haven't answered my question. Exactly how does one determine which parts of the text are valid and which can be ignored? Why is it acceptable to quote Leviticus to support an anti-gay 'lifestyle' stance but ignore the same text when it refers to beard trimming, diet and composition of fabrics in clothing?

    If Christianity was as clear as you maintain it is there would not be the need for me and many others to query exactly how ye determine which bits of the Bible are considered relevant and which bits arn't.

    I suggest you start a thread on hermeneutics. It is going to really get tiresome, and derail the thread hopelessly, if we have to explain the basic principles of biblical interpretation in this one to people who are uninformed on the subject.

    Putting it very simply, a verse in Leviticus is inadequate when quoted as a justification for being against homosexuality. If you want to get into the reasons why, then feel free to start a thread we we can answer your questions on the basic principles followed by Christians in interpreting the Bible

    (I'm catching up on the thread as I've been driving on the interstate for the last two hours. I'm currently talking a break, eating a fine Chick-fil-A chicen sandwich, and piggybacking on the wireless signal from the McDonalds next door)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    That's it.. Its not just a Political issue. Its a deeply Religious Issue. They can investigate all they like. If you ask any Child in Ireland on the Street what is marriage you know what the answer will be.

    I have no problem with 2 men or 2 women living together. Or have civil rights to protect their relationship, tax, inheritance etc.. But to say that a Gay couples relationship can be called a marriage and is equal to a Normal Male/Female marriage is wrong. Its not.

    Civil marriage and religious marriage are two very different animals, civil marriage covers all the rights you are talking about, but it's not the sacrament of matrimony, which is the only 'marriage' the Church can lay claim to, that will remain indissolvable and between two virgins of the opposite sex for as long as you guys want, a change in law does not affect the workings of your religion, likewise the laws of one religious sect should not determine the laws that govern society as a whole.

    Question time: Does the Catholic Church recognise civil marriage without special dispensation? I think not but I'm not quite sure, if it's the case, why get so worked up over something that does nothing more than confer rights to a couple?

    Sorry for focusing on Catholics but I would assume the concept that marriage in the eyes of the law is not marriage in the eyes of God holds true across the board. I wonder if this line of argument is particular to countries where civil marriage is performed alongside religious, for example do Italian Catholics falsely equate the two when they obtain civil marriage status in advance of the church ceremony, rather than during as Catholics do here.


Advertisement