Catholic church urges schoolchildren to back anti gay marriage petition

humanji

Benny_Cake wrote: »

If you don't support same sex marriage, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But should people actively campaign to deny that right to others?

Or more importantly, should they be using children, who don't understand the issue, to sign petitions against it?

Corkfeen

Min wrote: »

Catholic church outlines the Catholic position in regards to same sex marriage to people who attend Catholic schools.
It is upto the individuals if they want to sign a petition or not.

I don't support same sex marriage which is only a recent concept, I will not be told by the media or liberals on how I should view marriage. I believe in traditional marriage, not because it is only between a man and a woman, because I don't believe marriage should be redefined to mean something totally different.

Anyway you still hear with heterosexual couples...it was a registry office job, which for some is not a real marriage in the sense it is not marriage in the eyes of God.

They are under the age of eighteen for the most part. They should be allowed to develop an independent opinion on gay marriage rather than getting an archaic and idiotic stance which has developed from a single sentence in a 2 thousand year old book. While they are in school, they should not be used as a tool to air the views of the Catholic Church in a political arena in an effort to dictate laws.

Min

Corkfeen wrote: »

They are under the age of eighteen for the most part. They should be allowed to develop an independent opinion on gay marriage rather than getting an archaic and idiotic stance which has developed from a single sentence in a 2 thousand year old book. While they are in school, they should not be used as a tool to air the views of the Catholic Church in a political arena in an effort to dictate laws.

So they should let the media opinion on same sex marriage - which is strongly pro-same sex marriage be the only voice they hear?

It is more than a single sentence, the bible is quite clear on marriage.

Immaculate Pasta

Gay marriage is gay. :cool:

Benny_Cake

humanji wrote: »

Or more importantly, should they be using children, who don't understand the issue, to sign petitions against it?

I think that is the most objectionable element of this. When I was in primary school (Catholic), the only petition I remember being asked to sign was one asking Gorbachev to sign the Soviet Union up to a morotorium on whaling! The idea of young kids being railroaded into signing something which they are unlikely to even understand is odious in the extreme. It's a new and disturbing departure for Catholic education, and I say that as a somewhat lapsed Catholic.

Penn

Corkfeen wrote: »

They are under the age of eighteen for the most part. They should be allowed to develop an independent opinion on gay marriage rather than getting an archaic and idiotic stance which has developed from a single sentence in a 2 thousand year old book. While they are in school, they should not be used as a tool to air the views of the Catholic Church in a political arena in an effort to dictate laws.

Not to mention the fact that students as young as 11 were being asked, by their teachers, to sign the petitions. Plus they were shown videos or presentations representing one side of the argument only.

The school children were being used because of their numbers and the relative ease of getting the majority of students to sign it. The majority of Catholics are in favour of gay marriage. The majority of children, if being told by their teachers that gay marriage is wrong and being asked, by their teachers (underlined because that's important. They were being asked by a figure of authority) to sign it saying they agreed, would comply. Easy signatures for their cause.

Corkfeen

Min wrote: »

Corkfeen wrote: »

They are under the age of eighteen for the most part. They should be allowed to develop an independent opinion on gay marriage rather than getting an archaic and idiotic stance which has developed from a single sentence in a 2 thousand year old book. While they are in school, they should not be used as a tool to air the views of the Catholic Church in a political arena in an effort to dictate laws.

So they should let the media opinion on same sex marriage - which is strongly pro-same sex marriage be the only voice they hear?

It is more than a single sentence, the bible is quite clear on marriage.

They can read and develop their own opinion, rather than made to believe Catholic dogma as fact. Marriage is not a creation of Christianity so should not dictate who can and can't get married.

Min

Corkfeen wrote: »

They can read and develop their own opinion, rather than made to believe Catholic dogma as fact. Marriage is not a creation of Christianity so should not dictate who can and can't get married.

They have a right to air their opuinion, you can't say they can read and develop their own opinion while wanting one side of the argument silenced.

Benny_Cake

Min wrote: »

So they should let the media opinion on same sex marriage - which is strongly pro-same sex marriage be the only voice they hear?

It is more than a single sentence, the bible is quite clear on marriage.

I'd imagine that young children would absorb a lot of views and opinions from their parents and their peers - do you think they sit down after school and read what the Irish Times has to say about it? Really?

The Bible is very clear on adultery - it has very nothing whatsoever to say about same sex marriage, and indeed there is very little about same sex relations, especially loving and committed relationships between adults. There have been multiple interpretations of the few references to same sex relations. In any case, we live in a secular society, so a great many people will not view the Bible as the source from which civil laws should be derived.

Seachmall

Min wrote: »

Anyway you still hear with heterosexual couples...it was a registry office job, which for some is not a real marriage in the sense it is not marriage in the eyes of God.

If it's not a real marriage in the eyes of God why does God, or more correctly The Church, care?

Snowie

Snowie wrote: »

what I want to know is wy would any one want to be involved with the catholic church, I reocn its about time schools were de-relgionefied, and if you want to send your kid to a biased racist religion well you can pay for it..

other wise send them to none religious schools..

Its disgraceful that in this country you have to make a decision for your own child in what religion you are.. Ie catholic you must be baptized in order to attend school.

makes me want to puke

This is in the UK, people jump through unbelievable hoops to get their children into Catholic schools as they are far superior to other schools. There is zero chance of a child who is not part of a fully practicing catholic family getting into a catholic school, even then the more involved you are in the church the better schools you can attend. I have seen it with my cousin how much had to be done for him to get in so your post is irrelevant in this case as people in catholic schools in the UK are there 100% by choice.

efb

Min wrote: »

Catholic church outlines the Catholic position in regards to same sex marriage to people who attend Catholic schools.
It is upto the individuals if they want to sign a petition or not.

I don't support same sex marriage which is only a recent concept, I will not be told by the media or liberals on how I should view marriage. I believe in traditional marriage, not because it is only between a man and a woman, because I don't believe marriage should be redefined to mean something totally different.

Anyway you still hear with heterosexual couples...it was a registry office job, which for some is not a real marriage in the sense it is not marriage in the eyes of God.

Women voting would be considered a 'recent concept' in some counties- does that make it less valid?

Civil Marraige has nothing to do with the church so it why should it matter what they say- Christians didn't invent marraige contrary to the beliefs of some.

I can't wait until the UK includes Gay Couples in Civil Marraige- hopefully it will put pressure on Ireland to follow suit.

KeithAFC

People only seem to be catching on to the Roman Catholic Church now and its child abuse and the mental torture they put children through. It has taken a while but finally people are seeing them for what they are.

mongdesade

KeithAFC wrote: »

People only seem to be catching on to the Roman Catholic Church now and its child abuse and the mental torture they put children through. It has taken a while but finally people are seeing them for what they are.

God help us & save us Keith...finally something we agree on

efb

Keith's not a bad old skin!
Neither is Lord Bannside tbf

Old Tom

krudler wrote: »

wahey, its the weekly AH church thread, but they give such good ammo against themselves its hard to ignore.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/25/catholic-church-schools-gay-marriage




tldr version: organisation of celibate men hellbent on telling others how to live.

Fantastic, but would you have balls (also would it be allowed and politically correct on boards.ie) to share and comment in the way you did opinion the Muslims have on gay marriages?

Easy to bash Catholic Church, I know.

Seachmall

Old Tom wrote: »

Fantastic, but would you have balls (also would it be allowed and politically correct on boards.ie) to share and comment in the way you did opinion the Muslims have on gay marriages?

Easy to bash Catholic Church, I know.

The Islamic Religion has a ****ing disgusting attitude towards gay marriage, women's rights and a whole host of topics which are archaic and expose the stringent fundamental followers for the scum they are.*

PC enough for you?

I can do Jews as well if you'd like.

efb

Old Tom wrote: »

Fantastic, but would you have balls (also would it be allowed and politically correct on boards.ie) to share and comment in the way you did opinion the Muslims have on gay marriages?

Easy to bash Catholic Church, I know.

I don't hear the head of Muslim faith in the UK actively campaigning against Civil Marraige for Gay People

DEFTLEFTHAND

Seachmall wrote: »

The Islamic Religion has a ****ing disgusting attitude towards gay marriage, women's rights and a whole host of topics which are archaic and expose the stringent fundamental followers for the scum they are.

PC enough for you?

I can do Jews as well if you'd like.

Yes do the Jews as well please.

Seachmall

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Yes do the Jews as well please.

The Jewish people make terrible food.

And I don't like the Palestine thing either.

efb

Why do some Christians- Catholics in particular have no issue rejecting the church's teaching on Pre-Marital Sex, or Adultry but seem to to be very attached to their teaching on Homosexuals marrying?

krudler

Old Tom wrote: »

Fantastic, but would you have balls (also would it be allowed and politically correct on boards.ie) to share and comment in the way you did opinion the Muslims have on gay marriages?

Easy to bash Catholic Church, I know.

Yes, the muslim faith has an appalling record of homophobia, misogny, intolerance, extremism and downright nasty sh1t as well, but this story isnt about muslims.

fran17

the uk guardian bashing the catholic church,surprise surprise....

Old Tom

krudler wrote: »

Yes, the muslim faith has an appalling record of homophobia, misogny, intolerance, extremism and downright nasty sh1t as well, but this story isnt about muslims.

I know man, it's nothing personal, but in fact there are very few stories about Muslims. I'm not associated with any religion and I'm not a religious person myself, but I'm also not a huge fan of picking on Catholics just because they won't stab you, burn your house or successfully accuse of antisemitism before high court making a show on international scale. You've probably heard of what happened to some of the people slagging Islam or making uncomfortable (but true) comments about Jews.

I guess that in this case the safest option is to shit on your own doorstep, right?

I know my view isn't very popular on this young and enlightened forum, but I simply don't care

krudler

fran17 wrote: »

the uk guardian bashing the catholic church,surprise surprise....

Hows it bashing? all it did was report that the church is telling kids to sign an anti gay petition, which it is.

Corkfeen

Min wrote: »

They have a right to air their opuinion, you can't say they can read and develop their own opinion while wanting one side of the argument silenced.

They do however teach their stance as absolute fact (Homosexual behaviour is a sin blahblahblah) and to hand students a petition to sign on a matter which most probably didn't have an opinion on is entirely wrong. Sort of like handing a twelve year old a petition to sign on Intelligent Design, it doesn't mean that they have developed opinion on how ID makes sense (which it of course doesn't). They were merely manipulating children for their own political purposes in this situation.

fran17

krudler wrote: »

Hows it bashing? all it did was report that the church is telling kids to sign an anti gay petition, which it is.

correct me if im wrong but is'nt good journalism about interviewing both sides of the arguement and allowing the reader to make up his or her own minds? whole article seems just a small bit one sided to me

Corkfeen

fran17 wrote: »

correct me if im wrong but is'nt good journalism about interviewing both sides of the arguement and allowing the reader to make up his or her own minds? whole article seems just a small bit one sided to me

So if your child was handed a petition in school on legalising abortion you'd have no issue? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this view, in fact I myself am in favour of legalisation. But why exactly should a child or teenager be used to fulfil agendas of organisations on subjects that they don't have a fully developed opinion on. Why does every bloody thing get labelled as anti-Catholic, purely because its an example of the Catholic Church doing something idiotic.

token101

fran17 wrote: »

the uk guardian bashing the catholic church,surprise surprise talking sense and noting how the catholic church continue to preach intolerance and indoctrinate children....

token101

fran17 wrote: »

correct me if im wrong but is'nt good journalism about interviewing both sides of the arguement and allowing the reader to make up his or her own minds? whole article seems just a small bit one sided to me

So is it false? What would they say in their defence?

Sonics2k

fran17 wrote: »

correct me if im wrong but is'nt good journalism about interviewing both sides of the arguement and allowing the reader to make up his or her own minds? whole article seems just a small bit one sided to me

It's not bashing at all. It's reporting on something that is actually happening in schools.

It's a simple case of the CC pushing a religious and political agenda though children.

fran17

Corkfeen wrote: »

So if your child was handed a petition in school on legalising abortion you'd have no issue? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this view, in fact I myself am in favour of legalisation. But why exactly should a child or teenager be used to fulfil agendas of organisations on subjects that they don't have a fully developed opinion on. Why does every bloody thing get labelled as anti-Catholic, purely because its an example of the Catholic Church doing something idiotic.

legalising abortion!am i still in the same thread? of course i would take issue with any minor being used to further any organisations agenda.is it right then for the uk guardian to get teenagers underdeveloped opinions to further its one sided article with?

fran17

token101 wrote: »

So is it false? What would they say in their defence?

every newspaper has an agenda.all im saying is the other side of the story and why there petitioning it would be nice

Old Tom

Anyway, it's actually good that they are educating people.

Marriage is a privilege and married people get privileges (tax accounts, joint mortgages, inheritance laws, etc). In my old and backwards understanding it is because they can and (mostly) do produce children, to sustain the society and humanity. Long story short they create a family.

Of course, some of them don't - some of them because they can't (health issue, illness) some of them don't want to. Technically however, all of them should be capable of reproduction.

Homosexuals are NATURALLY incapable of reproduction and I can't see any reason why they should have the same privileges as people who produce new members of society. Gay people are not ill, they are not designed to have them.

I'm not saying about whether it's natural (doubt it's normal, norm=majority) or not here. I am simply saying that heterosexuals produce children (even if it would be only SOME of them) while homosexuals didn't, don't and never will.

Why should they be treated equally?

Sometimes this forum reminds me of:

Corkfeen

fran17 wrote: »

legalising abortion!am i still in the same thread? of course i would take issue with any minor being used to further any organisations agenda.is it right then for the uk guardian to get teenagers underdeveloped opinions to further its one sided article with?

I'm merely pointing out how it is incorrect to petition Teenagers/Children on political matters to fulfill agendas of organisations. Be it on gay marriage, abortion or any such matter. I'm not seeing any issue with what's written in the Guardian. The student they were quoting was in sixth form so they'd be around the age of eighteen and it was merely to illustrate what occurred.

Old Tom wrote: »

Homosexuals are NATURALLY incapable of reproduction and I can't see any reason why they should have the same privileges as people who produce new members of society. Gay people are not ill, they are not designed to have them.

I'm not saying about whether it's natural (doubt it's normal, norm=majority) or not here. I am simply saying that heterosexuals produce children (even if it would be only SOME of them) while homosexuals didn't, don't and never will.

Why should they be treated equally?

Wtf... Lesbians could technically be artificially inseminated and adoption should also be an option alongside surrogacy etc, so tons of options in that sense. Marriage is not merely for procreating, it comes with additional legal benefits for both parties. In essence its a legal partnership. So erm , yes gay people should be treated equally.

Logical Fallacy

Old Tom wrote: »

Homosexuals are NATURALLY incapable of reproduction and I can't see any reason why they should have the same privileges as people who produce new members of society. Gay people are not ill, they are not designed to have them.

Why, are they all sterile?

All they need to do is have straight sex and they can make a baby.

I think what you mean to say is...."Homosexuals orientation means that physical congress between them and a same sex partner can not result in a baby".

Finally, people who produce "new members of society" need to stop doing that anyway. We are dominant and numerous, time to change the game.

token101

fran17 wrote: »

every newspaper has an agenda.all im saying is the other side of the story and why there petitioning it would be nice

Well maybe you'd like to offer their defence in lieu then?

token101

Old Tom wrote: »

Anyway, it's actually good that they are educating people.

Marriage is a privilege and married people get privileges (tax accounts, joint mortgages, inheritance laws, etc). In my old and backwards understanding it is because they can and (mostly) do produce children, to sustain the society and humanity. Long story short they create a family.

Of course, some of them don't - some of them because they can't (health issue, illness) some of them don't want to. Technically however, all of them should be capable of reproduction.

Homosexuals are NATURALLY incapable of reproduction and I can't see any reason why they should have the same privileges as people who produce new members of society. Gay people are not ill, they are not designed to have them.

I'm not saying about whether it's natural (doubt it's normal, norm=majority) or not here. I am simply saying that heterosexuals produce children (even if it would be only SOME of them) while homosexuals didn't, don't and never will.

Why should they be treated equally?

There's your answer.

Sonics2k

Old Tom wrote: »

Homosexuals are NATURALLY incapable of reproduction and I can't see any reason why they should have the same privileges as people who produce new members of society. Gay people are not ill, they are not designed to have them.

What?

Old Tom

Corkfeen wrote: »

Wtf... Lesbians could technically be artificially inseminated and adoption should also be an option alongside surrogacy etc.

Key word highligted.

Any good (apart from a good movie) would come out of rubbing 2 vaginas against each other?

Corkfeen wrote: »

Marriage is not merely for procreating, it comes with additional legal benefits for both parties. In essence its a legal partnership. So erm , yes gay people should be treated equally.

Again - key words highlighted.

Don't believe you can't see it in your own words.

Old Tom

Sonics2k wrote: »

What?

Nothing.

Sonics2k

Old Tom wrote: »

Key word highligted.

Any good (apart from a good movie) would come out of rubbing 2 vaginas against each other?


Again - key words highlighted.

Don't believe you can't see it in your own words.

They're still capable of naturally having children. I'm the result of such.

I don't mind the odd bit of homophobia, it's an opinion I can accept, but at least get an education on basic biology, yeah.

token101

According to that article this is illegal? Why aren't these dickheads called to account and prosecuted for inciting hatred like that lad who insulted Fabrice Muamba?

Ghost Buster

Old Tom wrote: »

Anyway, it's actually good that they are educating people.

Marriage is a privilege and married people get privileges (tax accounts, joint mortgages, inheritance laws, etc). In my old and backwards understanding it is because they can and (mostly) do produce children, to sustain the society and humanity. Long story short they create a family.

Of course, some of them don't - some of them because they can't (health issue, illness) some of them don't want to. Technically however, all of them should be capable of reproduction.

Homosexuals are NATURALLY incapable of reproduction and I can't see any reason why they should have the same privileges as people who produce new members of society. Gay people are not ill, they are not designed to have them.

I'm not saying about whether it's natural (doubt it's normal, norm=majority) or not here. I am simply saying that heterosexuals produce children (even if it would be only SOME of them) while homosexuals didn't, don't and never will.

Why should they be treated equally?

Sometimes this forum reminds me of:

My friend Michelle and her now husband Paul cannot have children. They knew this before they got married. It is a medical reason and so would be considered natural/ Should they have less privilages than breeders?

Old Tom

Sonics2k wrote: »

homophobia

Ah good, old bit of bullshit - that always makes me step back.
You win.

Old Tom

Ghost Buster wrote: »

It is a medical reason and so would be considered natural/ Should they have less privilages than breeders?

No, because they are ill. Homosexuality isn't illness.

fran17

Old Tom wrote: »

Anyway, it's actually good that they are educating people.

Marriage is a privilege and married people get privileges (tax accounts, joint mortgages, inheritance laws, etc). In my old and backwards understanding it is because they can and (mostly) do produce children, to sustain the society and humanity. Long story short they create a family.

Of course, some of them don't - some of them because they can't (health issue, illness) some of them don't want to. Technically however, all of them should be capable of reproduction.

Homosexuals are NATURALLY incapable of reproduction and I can't see any reason why they should have the same privileges as people who produce new members of society. Gay people are not ill, they are not designed to have them.

I'm not saying about whether it's natural (doubt it's normal, norm=majority) or not here. I am simply saying that heterosexuals produce children (even if it would be only SOME of them) while homosexuals didn't, don't and never will.

Why should they be treated equally?

Sometimes this forum reminds me of:

points well made tom.comparing marriage to a homosexual partnership is like comparing apples with oranges.pardon the fruit pun

Corkfeen

Old Tom wrote: »

Key word highligted.

Any good (apart from a good movie) would come out of rubbing 2 vaginas against each other?


Again - key words highlighted.

Don't believe you can't see it in your own words.

But the rights aren't because of the fact they can procreate, its more of a result of two people loving each other and making sure that this is recognised in law and perhaps starting a family but the means don't necessarily have to be via one party getting pregnant. By your logic, infertile people shouldn't be allowed to marry as they won't physically produce children to continue society. Society doesn't collapse as a result of gay marriage, in fact it'd improves it terms of equality.. You should now google the highlighted word and understand the meaning of it as it seems to have been missed by yourself. :eek:

Sonics2k

Old Tom wrote: »

Ah good, old bit of bullshit - that always makes me step back.
You win.

Old Tom wrote: »

Why should they be treated equally?

That's homophobia, just of a different kind to the "KILL THE QUEERS" kind you see shouted. Denial of equality is a form of bigotry.

How is this even slightly hard to comprehend?
Why should marriage only be for those that can have a child together?
By your own statement, you'd want to deny marriage to a couple where one of them is sterile.

token101

fran17 wrote: »

points well made tom.comparing marriage to a homosexual partnership is like comparing apples with oranges.pardon the fruit pun

Why not just live your own life and leave others do as they like as long as they aren't interfering with you? Assuming you aren't gay yourself, it has no bearing on your life so why are you bothered about it?