• 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

At the time of the Law was given, Israel was it's own nation and a theocracy to boot. Any Law that was given by God, they could uphold and enforce within their specific community.
By the time of Jesus, Israel was a Roman holding. When Jewish law and Roman law contradicted each other, Roman law won.
Early Christian conflict with secular law seems to be based on Christians being persecuted by secular law, denied rights, and killed outright. It doesn't seem to be about imposing religious law on people of different belief systems.
This would be a contradiction to what Jesus taught. In essence you would be forcing people to keep the law for reasons other than their trust in God.
I don't personally agree with gay marriage, but as of right now, no one is trying to force me to marry another dude....so I'm good.
And for the record just because I don't agree with gay marriage, doesn't mean that I hate gay people, or that I am afraid of them, or that I would treat someone badly because they were gay. It just happens to be against my belief system. That's all.
 
Alix said:
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?
Click to expand...

My concept of fair play demands that I should understand the stance the Catholic Church in Scotland is making with regard to their faith. I have to understand in order to appreciate what's happening. As a secular society Scotland makes the effort with other religions and I don't see why the Catholic Church should be treated any differently, argument is a means to understanding.

Alix said:
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.
Click to expand...

You find me baffling... your first response to me was that the Catholic Church didn't have a leg to stand on which is a bit odd coming from a Catholic! The behaviours that you posted up presumably for examination aren't condoned by the faith you profess to be a part of either.

Alix said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm prepared to be wrong, I'd accepted beer good's point before 753C posted up clarification for the good of the discussion. It was then I realised I had conceded my point based on only half the information.

Incidently beer good, as you will be reading this... I resent the accusation that I'm only looking for excuses to come up with hurtful ideas to the detriment of gay people outside of the Catholic faith, it's been a clean argument up until now, lets keep it that way.
 
Conscious Bob, are you telling me that I need to agree with EVERYTHING the Catholic church says and does to call myself Catholic? I sincerely hope you're kidding. Apparently if you choose to call yourself Catholic you need to relinquish critical thinking and speech? That's ridiculous. I also need to agree with every edict laid down by the Vatican? Really? You have a very rigid view of things. I suspect very few of the Catholics I know would be able to say they agree with everything the church says.

I'm neither going to relinquish my profession of faith, nor my views on gay marriage. I'm also going to continue to offer my criticism of things I think my church needs to change. I am not a lemming or a sheep. How silly.

My point, as I mentioned before, is that most of the posters here agree on the two main points I mentioned.
 
Alix said:
Conscious Bob, are you telling me that I need to agree with EVERYTHING the Catholic church says and does to call myself Catholic? I sincerely hope you're kidding. Apparently if you choose to call yourself Catholic you need to relinquish critical thinking and speech? That's ridiculous. I also need to agree with every edict laid down by the Vatican? Really? You have a very rigid view of things. I suspect very few of the Catholics I know would be able to say they agree with everything the church says.
Click to expand...

Everything might be a bit much but something would be a start...

Alix said:
I'm neither going to relinquish my profession of faith, nor my views on gay marriage. I'm also going to continue to offer my criticism of things I think my church needs to change. I am not a lemming or a sheep. How silly.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking you to but there are other churches more harmonious to your views and lifestyle.

Alix said:
My point, as I mentioned before, is that most of the posters here agree on the two main points I mentioned.
Click to expand...

And I suspect that there's more to the Catholic Church in Scotland's stance than just preventing gays from using the word 'marriage' instead of 'civil partnership'. I've said that from the beginning but I'll state my argument tomorrow plus what I think the solution might be.
 
Conscious Bob said:
Everything might be a bit much but something would be a start...



I'm not asking you to but there are other churches more harmonious to your views and lifestyle.
Click to expand...

And you resent beer good's comments? This is what you call a "clean" argument?

You'll defend a faith you do not espouse, but deny me the right to question and criticize? And imply you know enough about me to suggest I abandon my faith. You got balls Bob, I'll give you that.
 
Quote from Conscious Bob

"My concept of fair play demands that I should understand the stance the Catholic Church in Scotland is making with regard to their faith. I have to understand in order to appreciate what's happening. As a secular society Scotland makes the effort with other religions and I don't see why the Catholic Church should be treated any differently, argument is a means to understanding."



What does this mean CB - are you saying that Scotland is behaving differently in its stance towards other religions in Scotland but not Catholicism?
 
Alix said:
And you resent beer good's comments? This is what you call a "clean" argument?

You'll defend a faith you do not espouse, but deny me the right to question and criticize? And imply you know enough about me to suggest I abandon my faith. You got balls Bob, I'll give you that.
Click to expand...

You questioned my motives, right of reply.
 
Okay, here it is. The Bible is made up from two books, the old and new testaments. The old has the law and the new has Christ's teachings, modern Christians place emphasis on the new. This wasn't always the case. When the Catholic Church became a powerbroker in Europe it placed emphasis on the old which gave it justification for crusades, inquisition and witch hunting to name some of the more infamous activities it has been engaged in the last 1000 years. Time has passed, science has had an effect, there are now many churches and the congregation is literate. The Bible is widely debated and in the last 200 years emphasis has shifted back to the new. We were judged by the way we lived in the old, Christ has paid for our sins in the new. All forgiven sinners together. There's a problem. The Bible is 2000 years old and there isn't an update planned. Christians are told to be tolerant of other sinners but thanks to Paul, sin is clearly defined in the new. The gay lobby in Scotland disagrees with indoctrination of the young and the Catholic Church disagrees with the state forcing change in direct violation of scripture. If this goes unchallenged, this will become an issue in Catholic schools. Why don't we adopt gay marriage with a guarantee of non-interference in Catholic schools?
 
The schools are funded by the Scottish Government, my proposal would therefore be a legal agreement between both parties.
 
Wouldn't you need a really strong Catholic lobby to get an agreement such as the one you are proposing CB? I don't know if it's the same in Glasgow as when I was a youngster but there was quite a tension between Catholics and Protestants - I remember once on St. Patrick's Day the headmaster stood at the front gate of the school to make sure we were not targeted by the Catholics from the school nearby (a long time ago but has the tension abated)? Is the Scottish government sympathetic to the needs of the Catholic schools or is that not even a consideration? As you can tell, I'm not aware of the current trends in Scotland. I do remember hearing of the madness of the Ranger/Celtic football games.
 
It shouldn't be sectarian in nature, I don't see how the protestant church would be negatively affected by this. My proposal is a compromise.
 
Conscious Bob said:
Are you asking me in my capacity as a lawyer? Put it this way, if the state can set up schools, the state can set up legal provision for changing circumstances.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I just don't understand these circumstances you are refering to. Are you proposing that Catholic schools, who are publicly funded, should be allowed to preach that being gay is a sin? Cause I think they probably will anyway... And I also think that if a legal agreement was made to regulate that, it would set a dangerous precedent.

Like I said before, maybe this could all be resolved by explaining to students the catholic position on the matter and the legal one. And allowing them to make up their mind on their one.
 
Landslide - your solution sounds reasonable - however, I'm not so sure that religious teaching would allow for a dual position. I don't think the teaching of dogma allows for personal decision making.
 
SFG75 said:
What do you think?
Click to expand...

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.
 
canuck said:
Landslide - your solution sounds reasonable - however, I'm not so sure that religious teaching would allow for a dual position. I don't think the teaching of dogma allows for personal decision making.
Click to expand...
You're probably right. And that's my main problem with religion...
 
Landslide said:
I'm sorry, I just don't understand these circumstances you are refering to. Are you proposing that Catholic schools, who are publicly funded, should be allowed to preach that being gay is a sin? Cause I think they probably will anyway... And I also think that if a legal agreement was made to regulate that, it would set a dangerous precedent.

Like I said before, maybe this could all be resolved by explaining to students the catholic position on the matter and the legal one. And allowing them to make up their mind on their one.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top