Catholic church urges schoolchildren to back anti gay marriage petition

Ghost Buster

Min wrote: »

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.

Really?. Every single couple?. very good friend of mine was trying for a child with her now husband before they got married (Another thing your lot have issues with!). With nothing happening they had medical check ups and it was discovered that they could not conceive ever. Three year later they married.

On your second point then shouldnt you be protesting against marriage for the elderly and just let them have civil partnership as well. Will you sign a petition about this if i prepare one?

krudler

krudler wrote: »

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: )

they're not good enough either :rolleyes:

Benny_Cake

Min wrote: »

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.

OK, your argument is ridiculous but consistent. So if a child has an illness which they are told will leave them infertile, someone will have to tell them that they will never be allowed to marry. That's nice.

Duggy747

By the argument here, a gay marriage is no more useful to society than a marriage that is childless (be it of choice or medical condition).

I say let them there gays get married, us straight folk shouldn't be the only ones who should suffer :pac:

Stark

Min wrote: »

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.

Well it's well accepted by society and law that people can marry regardless of their fertility status, so that's one argument you've lost long ago.

Min

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Really?. Every single couple?. very good friend of mine was trying for a child with her now husband before they got married (Another thing your lot have issues with!). With nothing happening they had medical check ups and it was discovered that they could not conceive ever. Three year later they married.

On your second point then shouldnt you be protesting against marriage for the elderly and just let them have civil partnership as well. Will you sign a petition about this if i prepare one?

Marriage in the state is basically civil partnership, they can upgrade the same sex unions to that of opposite unions within the state and call it civil partnership - which is what it is really in the state.

I think the state should change it's version of marriage to civil partnership and give the same rights to same sex couples, then I know some want a more secular state, in this way you could have the state providing it's partnership unions and the religious groups whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and so on providing marriage. Afterall most of the religious orgnaisations do not provide same sex marriage anyway and going by the census it makes same sex marriage a bit irrelevant as same sex couples who have a religion will still not be married in the eyes of their God, Gods or faith.

Min

Stark wrote: »

Well it's well accepted by society and law that people can marry regardless of their fertility status, so that's one argument you've lost long ago.

Yes and I have said that myself.

Nodin

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.

The state took little or no role in orindary marriages in Europe until the 1500's. There was no requirement for a uniform recognised form of marriage in Britan until the mid 1700's, for instance. Society managed.

St.Spodo

Preventing gays from getting married won't stop them being gay. Allowing gays to marry won't encourage straight people to have gay marriages. It's simply a matter of tolerance and acceptance.

efb

Min wrote: »

Marriage in the state is basically civil partnership, they can upgrade the same sex unions to that of opposite unions within the state and call it civil partnership - which is what it is really in the state.

I think the state should change it's version of marriage to civil partnership and give the same rights to same sex couples, then I know some want a more secular state, in this way you could have the state providing it's partnership unions and the religious groups whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and so on providing marriage. Afterall most of the religious orgnaisations do not provide same sex marriage anyway and going by the census it makes same sex marriage a bit irrelevant as same sex couples who have a religion will still not be married in the eyes of their God, Gods or faith.

Unless their god accepts it! Go Gay loving Gods!

efb

Min wrote: »

Marriage in the state is basically civil partnership, they can upgrade the same sex unions to that of opposite unions within the state and call it civil partnership - which is what it is really in the state.

I think the state should change it's version of marriage to civil partnership and give the same rights to same sex couples, then I know some want a more secular state, in this way you could have the state providing it's partnership unions and the religious groups whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and so on providing marriage. Afterall most of the religious orgnaisations do not provide same sex marriage anyway and going by the census it makes same sex marriage a bit irrelevant as same sex couples who have a religion will still not be married in the eyes of their God, Gods or faith.

Unless their god accepts it! Go Gay loving Gods!
Why does religion have a claim on marraige?

philologos

Ghost Buster wrote: »

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.

Did I ever say they would? That's not my argument.

I'll happily take a few minutes to look into some studies on parental gender roles and the benefits of marriage in respect to children.

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

Did I ever say they would? That's not my argument.

I'll happily take a few minutes to look into some studies on parental gender roles and the benefits of marriage in respect to children.

You've been linked them several times, and you and I have had this discussion numerous times.

You simply refuse to change your mind based on your religious beliefs.

philologos

Sonics2k wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

Did I ever say they would? That's not my argument.

I'll happily take a few minutes to look into some studies on parental gender roles and the benefits of marriage in respect to children.

You've been linked them several times, and you and I have had this discussion numerous times.

You simply refuse to change your mind based on your religious beliefs.

I'm referring to quite a bit of research that backs up the benefits of having both a mother and a father.

How about sitting back enjoying your Friday and let me do some homework as I've done before when presenting this argument. There's no need to be as defensive or emotive about this issue.

We simply disagree. Let's do so like adults rather than children. I'm interested in doing this in a gracious and respectable manner. I'll talk to those who are interested in that. If not I'm more than happy to step aside. I want to enjoy my Friday rather than listen to hypocritical accusations of bigotry.

Is that OK with you?l

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

I'm referring to quite a bit of research that backs up the benefits of having both a mother and a father.

How about sitting back enjoying your Friday and let me do some homework as I've done before when presenting this argument. There's no need to be as defensive or emotive about this issue.

We simply disagree. Let's do so like adults rather than children. I'm interested in doing this in a gracious and respectable manner. I'll talk to those who are interested in that. If not I'm more than happy to step aside. I want to enjoy my Friday rather than listen to hypocritical accusations of bigotry.

Is that OK with you?l

And you've been given proof to counter it on numerous occasions, and I have given you my personal life details in a few threads as well.

I am willing to discuss this as an adult, and as an adult I do so without resorting to superstition and fairy tales to distort my vision, unlike a child.

philologos

Sonics2k wrote: »

And you've been given proof to counter it on numerous occasions, and I have given you my personal life details in a few threads as well.

I'd ask you when have I been given "proof" that counters decades of research on gender roles in respect to children?

By the by, I'm not saying that other people can't raise children. I'm simply saying that I believe that the nuclear family unit is the best for a child.

Sonics2k wrote: »

I am willing to discuss this as an adult, and as an adult I do so without resorting to superstition and fairy tales to distort my vision, unlike a child.

I've not invoked superstition anywhere. In fact it was you who alleged that Jesus would somehow disagree with my position on same-sex marriage.

Millicent

philologos wrote: »

I'd ask you when have I been given "proof" that counters decades of research on gender roles in respect to children?

I'd be interested in seeing that research. Oddly, I've never come across such a study in all my time undertaking gender studies. Seems odd that I might have missed that.

Pedant

philologos wrote: »

I'd ask you when have I been given "proof" that counters decades of research on gender roles in respect to children?

By the by, I'm not saying that other people can't raise children. I'm simply saying that I believe that the nuclear family unit is the best for a child.



I've not invoked superstition anywhere. In fact it was you who alleged that Jesus would somehow disagree with my position on same-sex marriage.

Already there have been numerous unbiased studies into gender roles and same-sex families. Below is a link to a few of these studies (the link is to a post in the Christianity Forum a few months ago - a forum I believe you frequent often, so I don't know if you've read the thread it was in or not).

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74220714&postcount=348

What you believe "is best for a child" is your belief, it is not fact. No "belief" of such without scientific grounding should ever make its way into policy making, yet sadly, it does - this is the unfortunate nature of democracy. The only thing relevant, in my mind, to any such debate on same-sex marriage are facts, not beliefs - beliefs are irrelevant, especially if they have been deemed scientifically invalid.

Icepick

krudler wrote: »

Church leaders believe the proposal would reduce the significance of marriage.

right

Sonics2k

Pedant was kind enough to link to a thread with more than enough information, and one I was utterly failing to find with the search function! :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

I'll happily take a few minutes to look into some studies on parental gender roles and the benefits of marriage in respect to children.

Now you are just kidding. Given it is YOU that keeps telling US what the "ideal" parental configuration for the upbringing of children is... I think it is US who would like to see YOUR studies, citations, substantiation... or just anything at all even off the back of a cereal box... to support the idea that your life long obsession of putting one man with one woman has ANY benefit whatsoever on children?

df1985

You could be the most homophobic bigot on the planet, thats your perspective....but you cant defend tryin to influence children on a subject to which they have no understanding.

Pedant

df1985 wrote: »

You could be the most homophobic bigot on the planet, thats your perspective....but you cant defend tryin to influence children on a subject to which they have no understanding.

This is exactly it. You don't see gay campaigners going into school and asking pupils to sign petitions in favour of gay marriage - imagine the blow-back from the religious brigade if you were to do something like that.

user098

Pedant wrote: »

This is exactly it. You don't see gay campaigners going into school and asking pupils to sign petitions in favour of gay marriage - imagine the blow-back from the religious brigade if you were to do something like that.

But gays don't own or provide any gay schools yet.

Pedant

user098 wrote: »

But gays don't own or provide any gay schools yet.

Elaborate on what you mean by "own" or "provide". Based on statistics, gay people will never yield such power.

Helix

marriage is a legal thing not a religious thing these days. the church doesn't own the rights to it. by all means keep up the ban on gay couples getting married in churches, and refuse to recognise their marriages in their church, but beyond that they should have zero say in anything of the sort

i don't really understand it to be honest. their beliefs make it very clear that gay people are at odds with their religion, which they're entitled to do, but why the big fuss trying to stop gay people of other faiths or no faith at all getting married? it's not like it has any bearing on the church in the slightest

user098

Pedant wrote: »

Elaborate on what you mean by "own" or "provide". Based on statistics, gay people will never yield such power.

What's to stop gay people setting up their own school somewhere ? Your entitled to the same grant funding as anyone else ?

user098

Helix wrote: »

i don't really understand it to be honest. their beliefs make it very clear that gay people are at odds with their religion, which they're entitled to do, but why the big fuss trying to stop gay people of other faiths or no faith at all getting married? it's not like it has any bearing on the church in the slightest

So why exaclty should the state follow only your beliefs instead ?

Pedant

user098 wrote: »

What's to stop gay people setting up their own school somewhere ? Your entitled to the same grant funding as anyone else ?

Well sure, a gay person could set up a school if he/she wants, or run a school if he/she wants. In fact, I'm sure there are a few gay principles out there, yet they don't force the notion of gay marriage on their pupils - for some reason, I imagine they know better.

Stark

user098 wrote: »

What's to stop gay people setting up their own school somewhere ? Your entitled to the same grant funding as anyone else ?

Same thing stopping members of every non-Catholic religion.

Helix

user098 wrote: »

So why exaclty should the state follow only your beliefs instead ?

the state shouldn't follow ANY religious beliefs

what a non-catholic gay couple getting married has to do with the catholic church is beyond me. that's like the pioneers group deciding to ban alcohol for everyone, just because it's at odds with their ethos

live and let live

Pedant

user098 wrote: »

So why exaclty should the state follow only your beliefs instead ?

The idea is that the state follow no beliefs at all - it's called secularism. The only principle that the state should follow when it comes to these social issues is the notion of equality and adherence to human rights. Not allowing gay people to get married is a blatant breach of human rights (and I challenge anyone who disagrees with that analogy to make a coherent argument against it).

dylonator

General Relativity wrote: »

Who cares what school children have to say on gay marriage.

Ban Gay marriage, ban straight marriage. Allow straight marriage, allow gay marriage. It's really that simple.

that made no sense to me at all..

dylonator

user098 wrote: »

So why exaclty should the state follow only your beliefs instead ?

that is a ridiculous point

Millicent

dylonator wrote: »

that made no sense to me at all..

Really?! What tripped you up there exactly?

Pedant

dylonator wrote: »

that made no sense to me at all..

I think he was hinting at marriage privatization. It's not exactly banning, it's just marriage not falling under the legal jurisdiction of the state. Marriage privatization is like a "third way" in resolving the same-sex marriage debacle. It's not taken too seriously, but I'm somewhat in favour of the notion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_privatization

Vandy West

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.

Can't understand why people think it is strange or wrong for the Catholic Church to encourage Catholics to act or believe like Catholics!

If you don't want to be Catholic don't be Catholic.

Yes the Catholic Church is anti-gay, if you think that is wrong don't be Catholic.

If you want to divorce don't be Catholic.

If you want your priests/ministers/rabbi/iman,etc. to marry be a Protestant/Jew/Islamist,etc.

etc.,etc.,

suicide_circus

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&gl=ie&client=ms-android-sonyericsson&source=android-browser-key&q=definition+marriage&sky=mrdr

Millicent

Vandy West wrote: »

Can't understand why people think it is strange or wrong for the Catholic Church to encourage Catholics to act or believe like Catholics!

If you don't want to be Catholic don't be Catholic.

Yes the Catholic Church is anti-gay, if you think that is wrong don't be Catholic.

If you want to divorce don't be Catholic.

If you want your priests/ministers/rabbi/iman,etc. to marry be a Protestant/Jew/Islamist,etc.

etc.,etc.,

But marriage is not a religious rite or right. They can believe what they want--they just can't expect everyone else's lives to be dictated by their religious belief on a ceremony that they don't hold the exclusive rights on.

Millicent

suicide_circus wrote: »

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&gl=ie&client=ms-android-sonyericsson&source=android-browser-key&q=definition+marriage&sky=mrdr

Did you miss number two on that definition?

dylonator

i do not understand why gay people would want to get "married", it does not mean anything really unless you are part of a religion and can have fun together doing whatever religious married people do, sure i can understand why 2 men would want to be recognized by the state as together and receive tax relief etc, but marriage is a silly concept made up by religious people to have fun with, and if they say that you can't be part of their marriage if you are gay, i do not see why gay people would want to be, what do they want here?

Bannasidhe

Vandy West wrote: »

Can't understand why people think it is strange or wrong for the Catholic Church to encourage Catholics to act or believe like Catholics!

If you don't want to be Catholic don't be Catholic.

Yes the Catholic Church is anti-gay, if you think that is wrong don't be Catholic.

If you want to divorce don't be Catholic.

If you want your priests/ministers/rabbi/iman,etc. to marry be a Protestant/Jew/Islamist,etc.

etc.,etc.,

I'm not sure what your point is to be honest.

I have no problem with Catholics being Catholics. I wish more people who called themselves Catholics were actually honest and admit they are not really Catholics as they do not follow the tenets of the church.
What I do have a problem with is the Catholic church trying to influence the State to force everyone to abide by Catholic beliefs.
I am not a Catholic - why should their beliefs prevent me from marrying my partner and having exactly the same legal rights as my straight sister and her husband? It's none of their business. I have no desire to marry in a church so they need have no fears on that score.

user098

Pedant wrote: »

The idea is that the state follow no beliefs at all - it's called secularism.

Incorrect, true secularism is where the state does not take a particular side

Bannasidhe

user098 wrote: »

Incorrect, true secularism is where the sate does take a particular side

and which side would that be?

user098

Stark wrote: »

Same thing stopping members of every non-Catholic religion.

In other words nothing, as the funding is available to any denomination / non denomination

Pedant

dylonator wrote: »

i do not understand why gay people would want to get "married", it does not mean anything really unless you are part of a religion and can have fun together doing whatever religious married people do, sure i can understand why 2 men would want to be recognized by the state as together and receive tax relief etc, but marriage is a silly concept made up by religious people to have fun with, and if they say that you can't be part of their marriage if you are gay, i do not see why gay people would want to be, what do they want here?

I don't see why two atheists would want to get marriage....

Ridiculous argument if you ask me...

I don't know if you're aware of this, but there are religious gay people out there. Not all gay people are atheists and not all religious denominations are against the blessing or consecration of same-sex marriages.

Pedant

user098 wrote: »

Incorrect, true secularism is where the sate does take a particular side

The only "sides" at play here are the sides for equality and against equality. The state has a mandate to represent all the people, therefore it must be on the side of equality. If the state were not to take any side on this matter, where would marriage stand at all? Your argument is weak at best.

Helix

Vandy West wrote: »

Can't understand why people think it is strange or wrong for the Catholic Church to encourage Catholics to act or believe like Catholics!

If you don't want to be Catholic don't be Catholic.

Yes the Catholic Church is anti-gay, if you think that is wrong don't be Catholic.

If you want to divorce don't be Catholic.

If you want your priests/ministers/rabbi/iman,etc. to marry be a Protestant/Jew/Islamist,etc.

etc.,etc.,

that'd be fine if it was just the catholic church they were trying to influence. they're not. they're trying to influence non-catholics, which every gay person is by very definition - at least by the rules of the religion

user098

Bannasidhe wrote: »

and which side would that be?

Sorry folks, my bad, should have read "true secularism is where the state does not take a particular belief/non belief over another

Pedant

user098 wrote: »

Sorry folks, my bad, should have read "true secularism is where the state does not take a particular belief/non belief over another

Okay, genius. The state, as it stands, doesn't allow same-sex marriages - clearly then the law believes in traditionalist marriages, i.e., the law upholds a certain belief. So you must not agree with the state's position because it isn't secular. However, you don't seem to support the alternative either, i.e., same-sex marriage, because, according to you, it isn't secular either. So what position do you think that the state should take with regards to marriage if both opinions on the table, in your mind, aren't secular?