Catholic church urges schoolchildren to back anti gay marriage petition

Ellis Dee

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

I'm sick of hearing this crap. I'm no fan of the church, but c'mon, he was a child and forced to join the Nazi Youth just like every other child back then.

Correct, except that there was no such thing as "Nazi Youth". The body that Ratzinger along with all other boys had to join was called "Hitler Youth" (Hitlerjugend).

The minimum age for admission to membership of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (NSDAP or National Socialist German Workers Party) was 21. The present Protector of Paedophiles Everywhere was only a couple of weeks past his 18th birthday when the war ended.:cool:

There are plenty of real reasons to criticise him without wasting time on invalid ones.:D:D

mconigol

Incitement to hatred no?

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

I believe that there are key benefits to leaving marriage as the union between a man and a woman, and ultimately the best situation for raising children in.

And you think all that because...... why? I have seen you often telling people that is your position. I have never once seen you argue or elaborate on it.

philologos wrote: »

I'm more than happy to agree to disagree with anyone on this issue

Actually you rarely appear happy to disagree with ANYONE on ANY issue and normally when disagreement happens you run a country mile away from the thread in question.

philologos wrote: »

the union between a man and a woman as the best context for raising children in.

Why? I have yet to EVER hear a single thing a child requires for it's upbringing that is available to one parental configuration that is somehow precluded another. Numerous people trot out this "one man one woman is the best context" line but not one of them ever back it up in ANY way ever. Declaring things does not make them true, didn't you learn that in your philosophy lectures you claim to have attended?

philologos wrote: »

Anything to offer apart from rhetoric?

Funny, reading back over what I just wrote that's actually what I am asking you!

Seachmall

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Numerous people trot out this "one man one woman is the best context" line but not one of them ever back it up in ANY way ever.

Because there's nothing to support the claim, and initial studies suggest it's complete bollox [PDF].

Min

Min wrote: »

Same sex couples cannot have children that is biologically from both because nature doesn't allow this,

via surrogacy i think they can

it is not discriminating because it isn't legal.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

same sex couples cannot have children

They can have children. It's "infertile" you're looking for there.
Are you going to go out and campaign against infertile couples having marriage rights? No? Stop lying about it being "about the children" and fertility then.

If nature wanted same sex couples to marry,

If "nature wanted" you to use a computer, they'd be growing on trees :rolleyes:

we humans would be able to change sex

We can

Same sex marriage simply because there is opposite sex marriage is not an argument for same sex marriage.

"I don't like it for reasons I don't know why" is not an argument against it.

Delirium

Millicent wrote: »

Getting children to sign the petition is manipulative and underhanded. If you had have asked me as a child, I would have been against divorce. Children's attitudes change with life experience and time; to indoctrinate them into subscribing to a belief they don't fully understand is sickening.

And most likely illegal too.

The BHA (British Humanist Assoication) believe the CES’s actions likely also break sections 406-7 of the Education Act 1996, which forbids ‘the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school’, and requires balanced treatment of political issues.

Source

Penn

koth wrote: »

A most likely illegal too.

The BHA (British Humanist Assoication) believe the CES’s actions likely also break sections 406-7 of the Education Act 1996, which forbids ‘the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school’, and requires balanced treatment of political issues.

Exactly. If it's a petition, then it's being used for political reasons or to influence a political decision, regardless of whether or not the viewpoint behind it is based on religious reasoning.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

Phuck off Kiddie Lick Church

Ghost Buster

philologos wrote: »

Personally, I disagree with same-sex marriage. I've signed that petition (if it is the same one) because I believe that there are key benefits to leaving marriage as the union between a man and a woman, and ultimately the best situation for raising children in.

I'm more than happy to agree to disagree with anyone on this issue, but I think there should be a proper dialogue about the subject rather than the Conservatives trying to steam roll over a huge section of their own party, and the general public.

Over 460,000 people have signed that petition for a reason, it's because they are dissatisfied that there isn't a proper consultation on the subject. I think it's entirely justified that people show their disagreement to same-sex marriage and allow a dialogue based on merit on the subject.

Just because you decide to allow gay and lesbien people to marry doesnt mean that straight people will suddenly stop getting married and catch 'the gay' you know. The percentages wont suddenly change.

JimiTime

Penn wrote: »

Ben Goldacre on Twitter made a good point. The Catholics never seem to go after adulterers. They pick on homosexuality and abortions because they can get away with picking on them.

It's true though. If the Catholic Church protested against everything that is just as sinful as gay marriage, they'd be protesting against 90% of their own followers for one reason or another.

TBH, society still takes a dim view of adultery etc, so theres nothing much to talk or protest about there. Adultery has been happening for millenia, and so has homosexual behaviour. The difference is, that society is moving towards legitimising homosexuality at present, so the RCC are perking up about it. If some similar movement was occurring in relation to adultery, you'd probably see the same reaction.

penn wrote:

If people disagree with same-sex marriage, that's fine. They're entitled to their opinions. I disagree with them, but the world would be a boring place if everyone agreed with each other.

What I am more annoyed about (with regards to this thread) is kids being used to sign a petition they don't fully understand by an institution which is not presenting both sides of the argument. That to me diminishes any effect that petition could ever have and renders it null and void.

Couldn't agree more.

lazygal

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Just because you decide to allow gay and lesbien people to marry doesnt mean that straight people will suddenly stop getting married and catch 'the gay' you know. The percentages wont suddenly change.

I think i've been vaccinated against the 'gay', I'm married to a man and I'm a woman. Phew.

I wonder would Jesus be happy to see the judgmental nature of those who claim to post in his name. He seemed like a sound bloke to me, not one who'd be hung up on who gets it on with who. Maybe I'm mixing him up with Mohammad.

Ghost Buster

I asked a question a while back and didnt get an answer. If the main objection to gay marriage is the fact that gay couples cannot produce children, do the same objections hold up to old people long past their breeding years wanting to get married?

JimiTime

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I asked a question a while back and didnt get an answer. If the main objection to gay marriage is the fact that gay couples cannot produce children,

Not only is that not the main objection, but its not even an objection as far as I'm aware. You may be mixing up the fact that the biological incompatibility of man on man sex is used as an argument against homosexual sex in itself.

I think the main objection to redefining marriage, is that it means the nuclear family unit is no longer given pride of place.

Sonics2k

JimiTime wrote: »

Not only is that not the main objection, but its not even an objection as far as I'm aware. You may be mixing up the fact that the biological incompatibility of man on man sex is used as an argument against homosexual sex in itself.

I think the main objection to redefining marriage, is that it means the nuclear family unit is no longer given pride of place.

Oh noes, your view of marriage will have to change, but thousands of loving couples will be able to have full legal rights and treated equally to straight couples.

WHAT A TRAGEDY!

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

Not only is that not the main objection, but its not even an objection as far as I'm aware.

look on the previous page so

Bluefox21

Really have lost all faith in that organisation. Funny because I was always against gay marriage without really understanding why. Even had a few arguments with people on another thread about it a long time ago!

This goes someway to explaining it. Catholic primary and secondary school and extremely religious grandparents who looked after me (God bless them )!

For the record I am now extremely in the pro-marriage side of the argument. The Church really is an embarrassment at this stage which in many ways is a shame as imho I do believe religion could play a valuable role in our society :mad:

JimiTime

Sonics2k wrote: »

Oh noes, your view of marriage will have to change, but thousands of loving couples will be able to have full legal rights and treated equally to straight couples.

WHAT A TRAGEDY!

No need to be a drama queen. I was just letting you know about the most common objection in my experience. The promotion of the nuclear family unit is valued by many as a very important part of society. While recognising that there are other family units, the nuclear family has always been given pride of place as the ideal. By defining marriage as a generic less special institution, many people see it as a danger to the nuclear ideal. They fear that it wont be promoted in legislation in the future to account for child rearing etc, but rather as just a civil union that bestows inheritance rights etc. They don't see that as good for society as a whole, and even though some may not have any moral issues with homosexuality and believe in legitimising their kinship with Civil Union legislation etc, they can still hold marriage up as something not to be touched. A framework for a successful society. That is what they believe is being undermined when marriage is re-defined.
Thats what I've gathered from the more informed argument anyway.

Sonics2k

JimiTime wrote: »

No need to be a drama queen. I was just letting you know about the most common objection in my experience. The promotion of the nuclear family unit is valued by many as a very important part of society. While recognising that there are other family units, the nuclear family has always been given pride of place as the ideal. By defining marriage as a generic less special institution, many people see it as a danger to the nuclear ideal. They fear that it wont be promoted in legislation in the future to account for child rearing etc, but rather as just a civil union that bestows inheritance rights etc. They don't see that as good for society as a whole, and even though some may not have any moral issues with homosexuality and believe in legitimising their kinship with Civil Union legislation etc, they can still hold marriage up as something not to be touched. A framework for a successful society. That is what they believe is being undermined when marriage is re-defined.
Thats what I've gathered from the more informed argument anyway.

You do realise that Marriage is just a fancy word for it all?

Gay couples are only seeking full equality in terms of legal rights when they enter a civil union. Things like inheritance, taxes and everything that a straight married couple gets. That is all.

It's the Church and opposition of equality who are trotting out the whole Marriage issue.

All they want is equality, but the bigotry and paranoia of the church prevent them by dodging the actual issue.

Once again, this has nothing to do with the word Marriage, it's about rights of inheritance, adoption of a child (like a step-father/mother etc), tax rights, mortgage rights and so on.

Why oppose this? Or do people actually have this view that the Sydney Mardi Gras parade is suddenly going to descend upon the Vatican and force the Pope to perform marriages for them all?

hooradiation

The catholic church being unrepentantly stupid on an issue?

Well, I am shocked.
SHOCKED I SAY

mikemac1

Sonics2k wrote: »

Gay couples are only seeking full equality in terms of legal rights when they enter a civil union. Things like inheritance, taxes and everything that a straight married couple gets. That is all.


Once again, this has nothing to do with the word Marriage, it's about rights of inheritance, adoption of a child (like a step-father/mother etc), tax rights, mortgage rights and so on.

They have civil partnership already
Maybe legislation can be adjusted to include all those so

Then they won't need marraige

bodice ripper

As long as the government doesn't force the Catholic church to perform gay marriages, it is none of their goddamn business.

Seachmall

mikemac1 wrote: »

They have civil partnership already
Maybe legislation can be adjusted to include all those so

Then they won't need marraige

But if civil partnership was adjusted to include all those it would become marriage.

efb

mikemac1 wrote: »

They have civil partnership already
Maybe legislation can be adjusted to include all those so

Then they won't need marraige

What would it be then???


"like a golf..."

Stark

JimiTime wrote: »

I think the main objection to redefining marriage, is that it means the nuclear family unit is no longer given pride of place.

And the main upshot of bigotry no longer being given pride of place is that it makes it easier for all the real families out there with gay members.

There was a spate of suicides earlier in the year in the US thanks to the Church's anti-gay campaigning: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202 . That's a lot of families ruined for the sake of this abstract idea family notion.

mikemac1

Seachmall wrote: »

But if civil partnership was adjusted to include all those it would become marriage.

It would still be civil partnership but with all the rights of marriage

efb

mikemac1 wrote: »

It would still be civil partnership but with all the rights of marriage

I can't believe it's not marraige?

Delirium

mikemac1 wrote: »

It would still be civil partnership but with all the rights of marriage

marriage in all but name? Why not just call it marriage then?

Millicent

mikemac1 wrote: »

It would still be civil partnership but with all the rights of marriage

Hence a marriage...?

prinz

Stark wrote: »

And the main upshot of bigotry no longer being given pride of place is that it makes it easier for all the real families out there with gay members.

So unless someone in your family is gay, you're not a real family

Stark

prinz wrote: »

So unless someone in your family is gay, you're not a real family

Don't put words in my mouth just so you can have a position that's easier to argue with :rolleyes:

prinz

Stark wrote: »

Don't put words in my mouth just so you can have a position that's easier to argue with :rolleyes:

What have I made up? I am just curious as to why you would put 'real' in italics as if having a gay member made a family any more real?

And the main upshot of bigotry no longer being given pride of place is that it makes it easier for all the real families out there with gay members.

Stark

prinz wrote: »

What have I made up? I am just curious as to why you would put 'real' in italics as if having a gay member made a family any more real?

That's not why I put real in italics so stop pretending like it is.

Corkfeen

prinz wrote: »

Stark wrote: »

Don't put words in my mouth just so you can have a position that's easier to argue with :rolleyes:

What have I made up? I am just curious as to why you would put 'real' in italics as if having a gay member made a family any more real?

And the main upshot of bigotry no longer being given pride of place is that it makes it easier for all the real families out there with gay members.

He was referring to the other poster who described a nuclear family as the accepted unit- hence the real family by that poster's logic.

prinz

Stark wrote: »

That's not why I put real in italics so stop pretending like it is.

OK, so what makes one family any more or less real than another?

Edit: Alright, thanks Corkfeen. Real nuclear families don't exist.:pac:

Seachmall

prinz wrote: »

What have I made up? I am just curious as to why you would put 'real' in italics as if having a gay member made a family any more real?

By "real families" I'm pretty sure he was referring to families who love each other regardless of the sexuality of their children, siblings, etc.

Thus, removing bigotry "makes it easier for all the real families out there with gay members."

Min

bluewolf wrote: »

via surrogacy i think they can

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

They can have children. It's "infertile" you're looking for there.
Are you going to go out and campaign against infertile couples having marriage rights? No? Stop lying about it being "about the children" and fertility then.



If "nature wanted" you to use a computer, they'd be growing on trees :rolleyes:

We can


"I don't like it for reasons I don't know why" is not an argument against it.

Surrogacy does not produce a child that is biologically from two men or two women.

They are not infertile, semen mixed with semen in a petri dish will not produce an embryo, or an egg put together with another egg will not produce an embryo, they are not infertile, it is not compatible with nature and how it allows children to be produced.
Your surrogate mother that you mentioned would mean one of the partner's did not have a biological link with the child, same with a lesbian couple who need a sperm donor.
Marriage came into existence for the most part as a stable form for the mother and father to bring up the children they have together which are biologically linked to both.
To say same sex people are infertile is not correct, they would have the same rate of infertility as heterosexual couples, the only difference is heterosexual couples go into marriage believing they can conceive naturally, same sex would go into a marriage knowing it is impossible from the start, therefore one of the main reasons for marriage is non existent.

Nature allows us to use what the Earth provides to produce computers.

Change sex, yeah right, how many men who became women ended up giving birth?
Yes we had a man who claimed he was the first man to give birth but he was in fact a woman who kept the female organs that she was born with.

Same sex marriage is just some new supposed right that has been invented, if one is against it and favours the traditional view of marriage they are ridiculed because that is acceptable. I know why I am against it.
It is not a basis for the two people to come together to produce a child that is biologically of the same sex couple.
Nature dictates against it and it doesn't offer anything worthwhile to general society.
Same sex couples may want marriage, but they also might like to have a child together, sometimes you can't always get what you want.

To say same sex people are infertile is not correct, they would have the same rate of infertility as heterosexual couples, the only difference is heterosexual couples go into marriage believing they can conceive naturally, same sex would go into a marriage knowing it is impossible from the start, therefore one of the main reasons for marriage is non existent.

Eh no, I wasn't calling them infertile, I was saying you were incorrect in saying they can't produce children as it's infertile people who can't.

You're also quite incorrect in saying that all hetero couples start marriage knowing they want children and thinking they can have children - the list that defies this includes those who marry but do not want children and never have them; people who know they are infertile and marry anyway; older couples who are well past childbearing years who marry.

Are you going to protest them?

efb

Min wrote: »

Surrogacy does not produce a child that is biologically from two men or two women.

They are not infertile, semen mixed with semen in a petri dish will not produce an embryo, or an egg put together with another egg will not produce an embryo, they are not infertile, it is not compatible with nature and how it allows children to be produced.
Your surrogate mother that you mentioned would mean one of the partner's did not have a biological link with the child, same with a lesbian couple who need a sperm donor.
Marriage came into existence for the most part as a stable form for the mother and father to bring up the children they have together which are biologically linked to both.
To say same sex people are infertile is not correct, they would have the same rate of infertility as heterosexual couples, the only difference is heterosexual couples go into marriage believing they can conceive naturally, same sex would go into a marriage knowing it is impossible from the start, therefore one of the main reasons for marriage is non existent.

Nature allows us to use what the Earth provides to produce computers.

Change sex, yeah right, how many men who became women ended up giving birth?
Yes we had a man who claimed he was the first man to give birth but he was in fact a woman who kept the female organs that she was born with.

Same sex marriage is just some new supposed right that has been invented, if one is against it and favours the traditional view of marriage they are ridiculed because that is acceptable. I know why I am against it.
It is not a basis for the two people to come together to produce a child that is biologically of the same sex couple.
Nature dictates against it and it doesn't offer anything worthwhile to general society.
Same sex couples may want marriage, but they also might like to have a child together, sometimes you can't always get what you want.

So just give up trying and do as your told??

I prefer the Rosa Parks school of thought myself

Seachmall

Min wrote: »

Same sex marriage is just some new supposed right that has been invented.

So are property rights.

And work rights.

And a bunch of others.

In fact, the entire legal system is based on supposed rights that have been invented at one time or another.

therefore one of the main reasons for marriage is non existent.

Is reproduction a requirement of marriage now?

Nature dictates against it

Who's nature?

and it doesn't offer anything worthwhile to general society.

Is appeasing society a requirement of marriage now?

Min

efb wrote: »

So just give up trying and do as your told??

I prefer the Rosa Parks school of thought myself

Well if they are trying for a baby and they are riding eachother all day long hoping for some unexpected news, then yes they should give up

This is not comparable to an apartheid type of regime.

Seachmall

Min wrote: »

This is not comparable to an apartheid type of regime.

Is the sense that they're both based on ignorance and discrimination it's very much comparable.

Benny_Cake

Min wrote: »

Well if they are trying for a baby and they are riding eachother all day long hoping for some unexpected news, then yes they should give up

This is not comparable to an apartheid type of regime.

What about straight couples then, if they physically can't have kids, should they be forbidden to get married?

Min

Seachmall wrote: »

So are property rights.

Is reproduction a requirement of marriage now?

Who's nature?Is appeasing society a requirement of marriage now?

There is not a need for marriage for property, rights, the law could be changed within the civil partnership law to allow this.

I did not say it was a requirement, I said Marriage came into existence for the most part as a stable form for the mother and father to bring up the children they have together which are biologically linked to both.

The nature that doesn't allow two men or two women to have a child that is biologically from both.
If nature wanted this then it would have made us like frogs.
I don't see what same sex marriage offers society apart from appeasing a minority, because they choose to feel they are being discriminated against when same sex marriage has not been a norm in any society.

hooradiation

Min wrote: »

Nature allows us to use what the Earth provides to produce computers.
Nature dictates against it and it doesn't offer anything worthwhile to general society.

Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy, at least try to have better reasons for your terrible views.

Ghost Buster

hooradiation wrote: »

Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy, at least try to have better reasons for your terrible views.

I love the irony of folk who worship the Super natural constantly holding up what is natural as a role model.
Im still wondering about the marriage rights of elderly people who can no longer have kids BTW....

Min

Benny_Cake wrote: »

What about straight couples then, if they physically can't have kids, should they be forbidden to get married?

They go into marriage expecting to have children that is biologicially linked to both.
They don't enter marriage knowing with certainty that it is impossible.

If an older couple then one could ask apart from love, why do they need marriage - maybe on religious grounds, maybe as a companion for old age, but civil partnership caters for companionship and love for same sex couples.

Stark

hooradiation wrote: »

Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy, at least try to have better reasons for your terrible views.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Seachmall

Min wrote: »

There is not a need for marriage for property, rights, the law could be changed within the civil partnership law to allow this.

Which would make it marriage...

I did not say it was a requirement, I said Marriage came into existence for the most part as a stable form for the mother and father to bring up the children they have together which are biologically linked to both.

Blah, stupid argument.

The nature that doesn't allow two men or two women to have a child that is biologically from both.
If nature wanted this then it would have made us like frogs.

If nature wanted us to only marry members of the opposite sex it would have created marriage, and then explained the rules to us.

But it did neither.

I don't see what same sex marriage offers society apart from appeasing a minority

I feel the same way about rights for blacks, Jews, Poles, etc.:rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

Min wrote: »

Marriage came into existence for the most part as a stable form for the mother and father to bring up the children they have together which are biologically linked to both.

Did it? Have you citations for that. I have to admit that the History Of Marriage is not something I am very well educated in but what little I have read on the subject seems to suggest Marriage came about more for things like inheritance, securing assets, social and political bonds to gain power and influence and to cement claims by men over their women and stuff like that.

Now as I say I know very little about the subject but what little I have read so far has never mentioned concerns for the upbringing of children in the right kind of environment as the motivator for creating the idea of marriage. Also given the concept of marriage in one form or another appears to have existed long before written history I am also agog to hear on what basis you claim to know the motivations for why it "came into existence".

As I said it is a subject I have a lot to learn about so I would be interested to read your links and citations.

All that said however I wonder if it makes sense to refer to what marriage USED to be for as an argument about what it SHOULD be for today? Society is a fluid and ever changing thing and we have to change with it. Arguments that "Thats the way it was always done! We can not change it now!" have invariably failed to impress me in any realm of discourse, let alone this one. Change is not a bad thing in and of itself. One has to show that a particular change itself is bad. Merely shouting "Oh no! Change!" like someone running out of a building yelling "Fire!" is far from constructive.

For example the assumption you work on that one man + one woman is the ideal and best environment for a child to be brought up in would appear at this time to be an entirely baseless point from which to run your arguments. I simply have seen no evidence or argument that this is true, much less so on this thread or from your good self.

krudler

philologos wrote: »

Firstly, it's not on my personal religious beliefs alone, it's on the basis that I think it is better for society if we regard the union between a man and a woman as the best context for raising children in. I'm opposed to redefining such a key pillar to society.

what about single parent families? there are plenty of people, boardsies included, who were raising in single parent environments or even same sex environments, and they're perfectly normal people (well normal for boardsies :pac: )