• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Gay marriage

Conscious Bob said:
The changing circumstances I refer to is this proposed change in the law allowing gays to marry rather than commit to civil partnership. Don't forget in Scotland the Government wants to change the law not the Catholic Church. Is it unreasonable to give Catholic Schools (being state funded) a legal protection in the face of this 'precedent'? Without it I can foresee a situation where Catholic teaching may be in contempt of the law.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand what you purpose. That the Catholic church is protected against potential lawsuits for teaching children marriage is only ok if it's between people of different sexes?
 
Mr. A said:
On the subject of marriage - its essentially a contract between two people , so all the government should do is to recognize, uphold, and protect the contract, just like other contract people want to enter into together. Whether its same gender, or opposite gender, its only the contract itself that should be the governments concern.
Click to expand...

The contract exists and is either called 'marriage' or 'civil partnership' depending on the genders of the participants. Apparently that's not good enough.
 
Conscious Bob said:
The contract exists and is either called 'marriage' or 'civil partnership' depending on the genders of the participants. Apparently that's not good enough.
Click to expand...
It's not good enough because it's discriminating. Why would the same contract have different names depending on the gender of it's participants?
 
Landslide said:
It's not good enough because it's discriminating. Why would the same contract have different names depending on the gender of it's participants?
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing the point. My proposal is a compromise to prevent either party grinding the other into the dust.
 
Landslide said:
I think that since they are publicly funded, they need to follow state law. Maybe they could be given the choice of doing so or lose the public funds. Because if we're talking of a private Catholic school, I don't think this problem exists...
Click to expand...
I'm refering to Scottish law and Scottish State funding. So conform or lose the funding, I'll take that as a 'no' then.
 
Conscious Bob said:
I'm not arguing the point. My proposal is a compromise to prevent either party grinding the other into the dust.
Click to expand...
I just don't see how such compromise would be possible.

Conscious Bob said:
I'm refering to Scottish law and Scottish State funding. So conform or lose the funding, I'll take that as a 'no' then.
Click to expand...
While I know nothing of Scottish law, I imagine there is a clear separation between state and religion (any religion), right? I also imagine it guarantees that no one should be discriminated because of their religion, gender, age and sexual orientation (among others). Is this correct?
If my assumptions are correct, I don't think allowing same gender marriages is going against people's right to profess their faith. If their religion says gay marriage is wrong then they have the right to believe it's wrong. They don't have the right, however, to force their belief in what is right to everyone.
So yes, conform or lose the funding. Public schools should be separated from religion in my opinion, but since they are not in Scotland then I think they should uphold the law.
 
Landslide said:
While I know nothing of Scottish law, I imagine there is a clear separation between state and religion (any religion), right? I also imagine it guarantees that no one should be discriminated because of their religion, gender, age and sexual orientation (among others). Is this correct?
If my assumptions are correct, I don't think allowing same gender marriages is going against people's right to profess their faith. If their religion says gay marriage is wrong then they have the right to believe it's wrong. They don't have the right, however, to force their belief in what is right to everyone.
So yes, conform or lose the funding. Public schools should be separated from religion in my opinion, but since they are not in Scotland then I think they should uphold the law.
Click to expand...

Then you understand exactly why I think the Catholic Church will be affected if this change in the law goes through. My work here is done.
 
Landslide said:
It's not good enough because it's discriminating. Why would the same contract have different names depending on the gender of it's participants?
Click to expand...

Right, it should not. The only moral political economic social system that actually does recognize, uphold, protect individual rights, that of laissez-faire capitalism, this would not be an issue as it is today. There would be a clearly defined separation of State and religion, and State and economics (in regards to production and trade). If a man and a woman want to enter into the contract of marriage together, or a woman and anther woman want to, or a man and another man want to, the only concern of the government in regards to it, is the actual contract itself, and it could not bar or prevent them from entering into such contracts, or it would be a violation of their rights by interfering with said contracts.
 
Conscious Bob said:
I'm not arguing the point. My proposal is a compromise to prevent either party grinding the other into the dust.
Click to expand...

As I said before, it's hard to compromise when one side has so much less than the other to give up. Let's... well, in the spirit of the thing, let's have a parable!

1. A man had two servants; we can call them Peter and Bruce, for they are goodly names.

2. And for many years the man bade his two servants live in the same house and do the same work, and called them equal. But he gave unto Peter the power to furnish the house, and to divide the wages, and to divide the food, and to make up the house rules, and to choose the TV schedule, and to pick wives unto them, something in which Bruce had little interest, for which Peter did loudly lambast him whenever the subject came up.

3. And lo, for thrice and thrice of a score of a thingamajig of an age, Peter did screw Bruce over. And Peter lived happily knowing that everything was ordered in the best way possible, since it was ordered as he liked it.

4. One day, Bruce came unto the man whom he served and said, "Master, many a year we've both worked for you now, but Peter has grown rich while I've never seen a penny, he controls every aspect of my life, and he refuses to let me play my Tchaikovsky records. It's like he takes for granted that everyone is exactly like him. I'm not asking you to reverse our roles, nay, for I am not a vengeful man, but give me a wage of my own and a house of my own no better or worse than Peter's where I can live, eat, and bed as I see fit without having to ask Peter's permission, and let him do likewise, that we may both serve you on our own terms."

5. And Peter did take this very badly, for being used to not having to consider Bruce's feelings, he called it persecution to be told that he was the cause of Bruce's unhappiness. And he did call Bruce a sinner and could not go a day without cursing his name and proclaiming Bruce the main threat to all Peters everywhere.

6. But their master was wise, yea, and he spake unto them: "What is needed here is compromise. Peter, ease up on the name-calling; forsooth, I do not hate Bruce. In return, Bruce, you will stop this talk of a house of your own. Verily, you have now both made concessions, and it is fair."

7. And they both moved back into Peter's house, and things returned to how they'd always been. And Peter did praise his master's wisdom, and did humbly pride himself on having been good enough to compromise. That Bruce was still unhappy was obviously proof that he was just as sinful as Peter had always said.
 
And if institutionalised homophobia and campaigns against equal rights were indeed unique to Scotland, your answer might have something to do with my parable.
 
beer good said:
And if institutionalised homophobia and campaigns against equal rights were indeed unique to Scotland, your answer might have something to do with my parable.
Click to expand...

As we both agree institutionalised homophobia is all over the world, your generalisation has nothing to do with my proposal.
 
And since apparently nothing has anything to do with anything, maybe someday we'll agree that the catholic church has nothing to do with whether the government should let same-sex couples get married. :)

I do agree that people shouldn't be prosecuted for saying gays are evil, much like I don't think it should be against the law to, say, deny the holocaust or support racism as long as it's not about inciting people to acts of violence. (Which isn't to say that people have the right to do those things unopposed, and if widespread public disgust with such opinions make them less popular, then it's a good thing.) But that's a completely separate issue, and legislating for one thing doesn't necessarily mean legislating against another. You don't ask some people to settle for less equal rights just so it doesn't upset bigots. Which has been my point all along.
 
beer good said:
And since apparently nothing has anything to do with anything, maybe someday we'll agree that the catholic church has nothing to do with whether the government should let same-sex couples get married.
Click to expand...

I agree that gays should not encounter barriers to marriage but it's not an ideal world. There is a debate in Scotland on a change in the law and everyone has a right to be heard.

beer good said:
I do agree that people shouldn't be prosecuted for saying gays are evil, much like I don't think it should be against the law to, say, deny the holocaust or support racism as long as it's not about inciting people to acts of violence. (Which isn't to say that people have the right to do those things unopposed, and if widespread public disgust with such opinions make them less popular, then it's a good thing.) But that's a completely separate issue, and legislating for one thing doesn't necessarily mean legislating against another. You don't ask some people to settle for less equal rights just so it doesn't upset bigots. Which has been my point all along.
Click to expand...

Odd, inciting hatred is definitely wrong.

To let you understand from the Christian, not just Catholic viewpoint you're evil, I'm evil too and so is everyone else that isn't saved. Gays are not being specifically targeted here. Gay sex is a sin along with every other innocuous human behaviour, no better or worse than the rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top