Gay marriage

[beer good]

It wasn't at first, you didn't make a distinction between religious and secular morals, now according to you the state should interfere with Catholic schooling, you're not the only one even if you are a new addition in the ranks, you wonder why Catholics disagree with gay marriage?

Right. Because I don't think you can make that distinction. Religious morals have always adapted to secular morals, and only advanced students of Orwellianism bother to keep two separate systems of right and wrong in their heads at one time. If "religious morals", whether they apply to gay marriage, women's rights or the right to human sacrifice, are out of step with "secular morals" they have to adapt.

And no, I'm not saying the state should interfere with Catholic schooling; I'm saying that if the state does something which has nothing whatsoever to do with Catholic schoooling, but which as a side effect makes it more difficult for Catholic schools to teach bigotry since the children they're trying to indoctrinate recognise it as such, then the Catholic schools will simply have to suck it up. I've said that about 4 times by now.

So if civil partnership isn't a compromise then what exactly is it?

"Separate but equal", historically, makes for a very poor compromise. If it doesn't give the exact same legal rights, then it's still a limitation of civil rights. If it does, then the distinction is merely window-dressing meant to create the illusion of special treatment anyway, and you might as well call it what it is.

 

[Conscious Bob]

Catholics should not be denied their principles any more than gays should be denied their rights. And yes, I'm saying the Catholic church should evolve, no sugar coating it. They have in the past, or we'd still have the inquisition and witch hunts.

The examples you have mentioned aren't commented on in the Bible. Gay sex is unfortunately.

 

[beer good]

The examples you have mentioned aren't commented on in the Bible. Gay sex is unfortunately.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

There are plenty of things "commented on" (as in, declared mortal sins) in the Bible that the church has gotten rid of over the years. Things banned on pain of death in the OT, apart from gay sex, include planting crops side by side, wearing clothes of mixed threads, shaving, eating shrimp, and working on Sundays. Yet you don't see the Catholic church claim persecution because of any of those. Funny.

 

[Conscious Bob]

There are plenty of things "commented on" (as in, declared mortal sins) in the Bible that the church has gotten rid of over the years. Things banned on pain of death in the OT, apart from gay sex, include planting crops side by side, wearing clothes of mixed threads, shaving, eating shrimp, and working on Sundays. Yet you don't see the Catholic church claim persecution because of any of those. Funny.

Fair point you got me.

 

[Conscious Bob]

Catholics should not be denied their principles any more than gays should be denied their rights. And yes, I'm saying the Catholic church should evolve, no sugar coating it. They have in the past, or we'd still have the inquisition and witch hunts.

As it's been demonstrated the Catholic Church has made compromises I'll concede that point.

 

[canuck]

I've been following some of the posts and exchanges with Conscious Bob but have missed something along the way - Is gay civil marriage legal in England and Scotland? If so, it need not involve the church? I went to a Protestant school in Glasgow as a youngster and am wondering what the percentage Protestant to Catholic is in Scotland - somehow I had the impression that Protestantism was in the majority?

 

[Conscious Bob]

I live in Glasgow and me and my wife had a humanist wedding, a civil partnership is the same as a marriage from a legal standpoint.

 

[canuck]

I live in Glasgow and me and my wife had a humanist wedding, a civil partnership is the same as a marriage from a legal standpoint.

Hi CB - Just Googled the answer and saw that civil marriage is allowed. I copied this from Google. Thanks for responding.

"Same-sex couples in Scotland currently have the option to enter into civil partnerships and the Holyrood government has insisted no part of the religious community would be forced to hold same-sex weddings in churches."

 

[Landslide]

As it's been demonstrated the Catholic Church has made compromises I'll concede that point.

Yes, it has. And I really, really hope they will again eventually (on this as well as in other matters that I won't bring to this thread).

 

[753C]

There are plenty of things "commented on" (as in, declared mortal sins) in the Bible that the church has gotten rid of over the years. Things banned on pain of death in the OT, apart from gay sex, include planting crops side by side, wearing clothes of mixed threads, shaving, eating shrimp, and working on Sundays. Yet you don't see the Catholic church claim persecution because of any of those. Funny.

Just for the sake of clarity..... The things you are mentioning are Levitical laws that were given to the nation of Israel at it's formation. In the time of the New Testament, specifically when Gentiles were first entering in to the Church a split occurred. The majority of the people who followed Jesus as Messiah shifted to a "Law of the Spirit" Which Jesus summed up as "Loving the Lord with all of your heart, soul, and Spirit and loving your neighbor as yourself." He said that these two commands encapsulated all of the law. Additionally, Gentiles were only required to keep certain laws, and none of the above were mentioned.
Paul in the New Testament, did however make negative reference to Homosexual Sex.
But you are right BG, in that, throughout history religious people have picked and chose what to enforce and what to give precedence to.

 

[Conscious Bob]

JPaul in the New Testament, did however make negative reference to Homosexual Sex.

As beer good's Bible quote is old testament is the anti gay marriage argument still relevant?

 

[753C]

Paul affirmed in the New Testament that homosexual sex is sinful. He also affirmed that a whole lot of other things were sinful too. In our culture for some reason the homosexual thing gets a whole lot more press. Not sure why....

 

[Conscious Bob]

Paul affirmed in the New Testament that homosexual sex is sinful. He also affirmed that a whole lot of other things were sinful too. In our culture for some reason the homosexual thing gets a whole lot more press. Not sure why....

Thank you 753C, it looks like I may have grounds for withdrawing my concession, that's provided Paul didn't also affirm the burning of witches, I don't think he did but my Biblical knowledge could be better.

 

[beer good]

Actually, at least some Catholics seem perfectly happy to point to Genesis and Leviticus rather than Paul, so while 753C's comment is a good one, in practice a lot of people seem to grasp at any excuse to justify their homophobia.

Homosexuality | Catholic Answers

An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).

Though it's worth noting that many christian anti-gay crusaders these days have eased up on the "they shall be put to death" part, at least in public (and at least in their own countries; there are those who merely oppose "the gay agenda" at home, while encouraging governments who execute gay people abroad.) So clearly, even in that case, the "it's in the BIBLE!" excuse is a little flexible.

Incidentally, Paul did confirm that witches are bad. Galatians 5:20. And yet the church has managed to get along without burning them for quite a few years now.

I'm not sure why I'm still arguing this since I'm sure everyone here agrees that democracies shouldn't give veto rights to religious organisations, but there you go.

 

[Conscious Bob]

Incidentally, Paul did confirm that witches are bad. Galatians 5:20. And yet the church has managed to get along without burning them for quite a few years now.

I don't think Paul would be the type of guy to go all hugs and kisses on witches, I'm looking for a specific instruction from Paul to put witches to death.

 

[Conscious Bob]

There's no instruction from Paul to kill (burning or otherwise) witches. beer good, Landslide I withdraw my concession.

 

[beer good]

Well, thanks for proving my point, I guess.

 

[Conscious Bob]

Well, thanks for proving my point, I guess.

It's a good point and I might not be able to counter it (yet). I haven't given my reason for withdrawing my concession, I'll post up why tomorrow for scrutiny.

 

[beer good]

Or in the alternative, you could stop trying your damnedest to come up with excuses for hurtful ideas that you claim to disagree with. But it's up to you. I'll be mostly offline for a few days anyway.

 

[Alix]

I'm a little confused actually. Conscious Bob, what point exactly are you trying to make? That the Catholic church is right or wrong in their stance on gay marriage?

I'm still baffled about how my description of what I've been told about the Catholic church's view on gay marriage in Canada became my own views on the subject. Why on earth would you say you disagree with the church's viewpoint and yet defend it, and then imply someone else's stance on the topic their personal opinion? Weird logic there.

It seems to me most folks who've posted agree that:

1. Gay folks deserve the right to marry
2. Churches have the right to disagree with secular law

Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it right. I personally disagree that fat and sugar are bad for me. Doesn't change the facts any, but I disagree and I think I can make a compelling argument to support my belief.