Men in dresses against men marrying each other
-
Gay marriage: Roman Catholic archbishops step up fight[^] "The letter says Roman Catholics have a duty to make sure it does not happen." They seem to have missed the reformation, or the fact that the UK legal system is secular. They should have no more say in the matter than any of the other citizens in the UK. The legislation doesn't mandate religious bodies to solemnise gay marriages, so I don't see that this is any of their business. To say it will "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world" is just wrong in the parts of the world that matter, and I don't see why we should care anyway. I'd have thought they'd have kept a pretty low profile, seeing as they have lost their moral authority by keeping certain "priestly activities" under wraps - given that is quite possibly the result of repressing normal sexuality, homosexual or otherwise.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Bunch of stupid old men trying to tell everyone else how to live: priests who live in glass houses...
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Gay marriage: Roman Catholic archbishops step up fight[^] "The letter says Roman Catholics have a duty to make sure it does not happen." They seem to have missed the reformation, or the fact that the UK legal system is secular. They should have no more say in the matter than any of the other citizens in the UK. The legislation doesn't mandate religious bodies to solemnise gay marriages, so I don't see that this is any of their business. To say it will "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world" is just wrong in the parts of the world that matter, and I don't see why we should care anyway. I'd have thought they'd have kept a pretty low profile, seeing as they have lost their moral authority by keeping certain "priestly activities" under wraps - given that is quite possibly the result of repressing normal sexuality, homosexual or otherwise.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Playing devils advocate here. Suppose that the law passes, then discrimination laws kick in and christian churches will not be able to say no to same sex couples marrying in churches, despite their own consciences. I'm not saying whether or not I agree with their position on this, but that is the position of the law in the UK right now.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
Playing devils advocate here. Suppose that the law passes, then discrimination laws kick in and christian churches will not be able to say no to same sex couples marrying in churches, despite their own consciences. I'm not saying whether or not I agree with their position on this, but that is the position of the law in the UK right now.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Playing devils advocate here
OK, so in reply: The case you give would be a matter of poor legislation and would probably not stand in court as it has been made clear that religious institutions will be exempt, the courts take this into consideration. I know there was a similar discussion taking place around the idea of women priests in the CoE when the synod voted in favour of introducing them. From what little I understood at the time, some people started a whispering campaign to the effect that, when an anti-discrimination act was extended, the CoE would be open to prosecution. This was despite the fact there was an explicit exemption, making such prosecution pretty much impossible - proof can be found in the non-prosecution of religious institutions that still maintain a male-only priesthood or clergy. If the legislation were to force churches allow the marrying of homosexual couples, I would be against it. In this circumstance I'd be 100% behind the attempt to stop it coming into force on the grounds of religious freedom. But the bishop does not even mention this as a possibility Often religious leader improve the debate IMO, and bring the a different moral standpoint. My main problem was with the tenor of what has been said. "Catholics have a duty to make sure this does not happen" and is, from the little I have read, peppered with emotive language intended to bring about fear of the consequences. The reasoning is flawed: Arguing that marriage has been a heterosexual thing for n years is just an argument against change without saying why the change might be wrong. Arguing that marriage is there as a context for starting a family is a non-starter too. By this logic, people who are sterile or do not wish to have children should live in "sin" to use the old-fashioned term. This is the best argument he comes up with and it is a red-herring. I'd also question his definition of marriage. The ecclesiastical standpoint is complex, but he doesn't really put that forwards. He defines marriage and tries to make his definition general, but my guess is the majority of people would see marriage as the intention to carry out a lifelong commitment to another other person. The other person being of the same sex has little bearing in my view, others can and will disagree, but I very much doubt the "For procreation" part of the bishops argument will feature in most people's minds. Taken from my standpoint t
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Playing devils advocate here
OK, so in reply: The case you give would be a matter of poor legislation and would probably not stand in court as it has been made clear that religious institutions will be exempt, the courts take this into consideration. I know there was a similar discussion taking place around the idea of women priests in the CoE when the synod voted in favour of introducing them. From what little I understood at the time, some people started a whispering campaign to the effect that, when an anti-discrimination act was extended, the CoE would be open to prosecution. This was despite the fact there was an explicit exemption, making such prosecution pretty much impossible - proof can be found in the non-prosecution of religious institutions that still maintain a male-only priesthood or clergy. If the legislation were to force churches allow the marrying of homosexual couples, I would be against it. In this circumstance I'd be 100% behind the attempt to stop it coming into force on the grounds of religious freedom. But the bishop does not even mention this as a possibility Often religious leader improve the debate IMO, and bring the a different moral standpoint. My main problem was with the tenor of what has been said. "Catholics have a duty to make sure this does not happen" and is, from the little I have read, peppered with emotive language intended to bring about fear of the consequences. The reasoning is flawed: Arguing that marriage has been a heterosexual thing for n years is just an argument against change without saying why the change might be wrong. Arguing that marriage is there as a context for starting a family is a non-starter too. By this logic, people who are sterile or do not wish to have children should live in "sin" to use the old-fashioned term. This is the best argument he comes up with and it is a red-herring. I'd also question his definition of marriage. The ecclesiastical standpoint is complex, but he doesn't really put that forwards. He defines marriage and tries to make his definition general, but my guess is the majority of people would see marriage as the intention to carry out a lifelong commitment to another other person. The other person being of the same sex has little bearing in my view, others can and will disagree, but I very much doubt the "For procreation" part of the bishops argument will feature in most people's minds. Taken from my standpoint t
See, this is the big problem with this. Have you read the text? I haven't either. I suspect that a lot of people who are getting angry about this haven't read it either. The issue about the legislation is not about exemption. Following the changes introduced to the law which resulted in it being illegal for any adoption agency to discriminate against same sex couples, the law has been tightened up so that it would be possible for same sex couples to sue a church for refusing to marry them.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
See, this is the big problem with this. Have you read the text? I haven't either. I suspect that a lot of people who are getting angry about this haven't read it either. The issue about the legislation is not about exemption. Following the changes introduced to the law which resulted in it being illegal for any adoption agency to discriminate against same sex couples, the law has been tightened up so that it would be possible for same sex couples to sue a church for refusing to marry them.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
See, this is the big problem with this. Have you read the text? I haven't either. I suspect that a lot of people who are getting angry about this haven't read it either.
I hadn't read it, and yes what you desribe is almost certainly true. The text is available here[^]. I still stand by my points. The letter seems to assume that there is only one definition for marriage, and it is largely that of the Catholic Church. Everything I have read is very much in the mould of a pronouncement: "We speak with authority and you must do as we say", which I don't accept, nor do I agree with their arguments. Little of what I have read has raised your legal points, other than what the legislation contains, if this is a concern then they should state it. AFAICT it wouldn't be possible to sue churches for refusing to marry homosexual couples, but you could very well know better (I get little news from home, and most of that filtered through the Beeb). As for the point about adoption agencies, this is to the well and good in my opinion. Iif a child's life is made better by being adopted by a homosexual couple rather than remaining in care, then that is surely better and it would be immoral of the agency to do otherwise? I suspect the practical bar for homosexual couples adopting is natually going to be very high: the child is likely to suffer bullying, and the agencies do rightly take such matters seriously.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
See, this is the big problem with this. Have you read the text? I haven't either. I suspect that a lot of people who are getting angry about this haven't read it either.
I hadn't read it, and yes what you desribe is almost certainly true. The text is available here[^]. I still stand by my points. The letter seems to assume that there is only one definition for marriage, and it is largely that of the Catholic Church. Everything I have read is very much in the mould of a pronouncement: "We speak with authority and you must do as we say", which I don't accept, nor do I agree with their arguments. Little of what I have read has raised your legal points, other than what the legislation contains, if this is a concern then they should state it. AFAICT it wouldn't be possible to sue churches for refusing to marry homosexual couples, but you could very well know better (I get little news from home, and most of that filtered through the Beeb). As for the point about adoption agencies, this is to the well and good in my opinion. Iif a child's life is made better by being adopted by a homosexual couple rather than remaining in care, then that is surely better and it would be immoral of the agency to do otherwise? I suspect the practical bar for homosexual couples adopting is natually going to be very high: the child is likely to suffer bullying, and the agencies do rightly take such matters seriously.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Please note that I did say I was playing devils advocate here. I'm still not going to read the text - I have my own opinions on the matter and don't see the need for Archbishops trying to tell me what to think, or not. I suspect that most Roman Catholic's are capable of thinking for themselves, and that they probably slept through the reading out of the letter.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
Please note that I did say I was playing devils advocate here. I'm still not going to read the text - I have my own opinions on the matter and don't see the need for Archbishops trying to tell me what to think, or not. I suspect that most Roman Catholic's are capable of thinking for themselves, and that they probably slept through the reading out of the letter.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
I realise that it is a case of devils advocate, but sometimes it is good to debate the points. It is interesting to note how they [the bishops] are behaving here, which is pretty much what annoyed me most. Not only are they trying to dictate to their congregations, they expect everyone else to listen too. I suspect, when this was read out, there was the equivalent of a collective meh.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
I realise that it is a case of devils advocate, but sometimes it is good to debate the points. It is interesting to note how they [the bishops] are behaving here, which is pretty much what annoyed me most. Not only are they trying to dictate to their congregations, they expect everyone else to listen too. I suspect, when this was read out, there was the equivalent of a collective meh.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Indeed. I just wanted to make it clear to the casual reader of this thread that the prelates opinions are their own, and my opinions are my own.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
Indeed. I just wanted to make it clear to the casual reader of this thread that the prelates opinions are their own, and my opinions are my own.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Are you often mistaken for a bishop? :laugh:
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
Gay marriage: Roman Catholic archbishops step up fight[^] "The letter says Roman Catholics have a duty to make sure it does not happen." They seem to have missed the reformation, or the fact that the UK legal system is secular. They should have no more say in the matter than any of the other citizens in the UK. The legislation doesn't mandate religious bodies to solemnise gay marriages, so I don't see that this is any of their business. To say it will "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world" is just wrong in the parts of the world that matter, and I don't see why we should care anyway. I'd have thought they'd have kept a pretty low profile, seeing as they have lost their moral authority by keeping certain "priestly activities" under wraps - given that is quite possibly the result of repressing normal sexuality, homosexual or otherwise.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Several people are responding with the opinion of "who gives them the right to tell people what to do?" And that is fine. However, where do we draw the line? There was a point in history where if you told people that one day men would be able to marry each other you would have been laughed at and banished from your village. So, what happens when the popular voice starts to say that killing another person is OK? Sounds absurd now but what if? So, what is wrong with a religious organization standing up for what it believes? Separation of church and state meant that the state should not mandate a specific religion. It does not mean church cannot publicize opinion to the state.
-
Gay marriage: Roman Catholic archbishops step up fight[^] "The letter says Roman Catholics have a duty to make sure it does not happen." They seem to have missed the reformation, or the fact that the UK legal system is secular. They should have no more say in the matter than any of the other citizens in the UK. The legislation doesn't mandate religious bodies to solemnise gay marriages, so I don't see that this is any of their business. To say it will "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world" is just wrong in the parts of the world that matter, and I don't see why we should care anyway. I'd have thought they'd have kept a pretty low profile, seeing as they have lost their moral authority by keeping certain "priestly activities" under wraps - given that is quite possibly the result of repressing normal sexuality, homosexual or otherwise.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]On 10 O'Clock Live last week they had a debate about gay marriage. I think the relevant bit may be available here[^] 27:29 in, not sure if available everywhere (or anywhere as is blocked at work). They had Boy George and a young gay Catholic called Milo Yiannopoulos who pretty much just descended into saying how much he hates himself because his religion says he is wrong. Boy George just said marriage is absurd, gay or otherwise, then spent the rest of the time trying to pursuade this kid he should be happy with what he is. It became more of a therapy session than a debate. I found the whole thing very depressing, and the idea that someone should be so miserable with what they are because of some archaic institution tells them they are fundamentally wrong is incredibly sad.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
Are you often mistaken for a bishop? :laugh:
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Depends if there was a bit of bashing going on.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
Are you often mistaken for a bishop? :laugh:
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Keith Barrow wrote:
Are you often mistaken for a bishop?
Only by Salma, hence the restraining order.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
Several people are responding with the opinion of "who gives them the right to tell people what to do?" And that is fine. However, where do we draw the line? There was a point in history where if you told people that one day men would be able to marry each other you would have been laughed at and banished from your village. So, what happens when the popular voice starts to say that killing another person is OK? Sounds absurd now but what if? So, what is wrong with a religious organization standing up for what it believes? Separation of church and state meant that the state should not mandate a specific religion. It does not mean church cannot publicize opinion to the state.
If you think homosexuality is a choice and fundamentally wrong then sure, spot on. However as it isn't, and is natural (be that as a response to evolution, because it was made by your god or some other one). Religious hatred is religious hatred, regardless of the religion and who they are hating at that particular time.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
If you think homosexuality is a choice and fundamentally wrong then sure, spot on. However as it isn't, and is natural (be that as a response to evolution, because it was made by your god or some other one). Religious hatred is religious hatred, regardless of the religion and who they are hating at that particular time.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
1. What makes you think homosexuality is not a choice? 2. You say that homosexuality is a "response to evolution." Homosexuality, if followed by all, would mean the end of the human race so how can that be considered evolution? Are you suggesting evolution is intentionally killing us off? Maybe you meant it as humor, like the Darwin awards or something. 3. What definition of "hate" are you using? I hate to do my homework or extreme hostility?
-
1. What makes you think homosexuality is not a choice? 2. You say that homosexuality is a "response to evolution." Homosexuality, if followed by all, would mean the end of the human race so how can that be considered evolution? Are you suggesting evolution is intentionally killing us off? Maybe you meant it as humor, like the Darwin awards or something. 3. What definition of "hate" are you using? I hate to do my homework or extreme hostility?
If homosexuality was a choice then there wouldn't be so many men and women, especially young men and women, hating themselves because other people who purport to care about them tell them they are wrong. Homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom, and has existed throughout human history too. It is as natural as being ginger and no more wrong. It will no more be the death of a species than any other thing that stops a small proportion breeding. However, increased homosexuality at a time when a species is growing beyond that which the eco system can support has to be a good thing.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
If homosexuality was a choice then there wouldn't be so many men and women, especially young men and women, hating themselves because other people who purport to care about them tell them they are wrong. Homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom, and has existed throughout human history too. It is as natural as being ginger and no more wrong. It will no more be the death of a species than any other thing that stops a small proportion breeding. However, increased homosexuality at a time when a species is growing beyond that which the eco system can support has to be a good thing.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
If you think homosexuality is a choice and fundamentally wrong then sure, spot on. However as it isn't, and is natural (be that as a response to evolution, because it was made by your god or some other one). Religious hatred is religious hatred, regardless of the religion and who they are hating at that particular time.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
Are you implying that murder is fundamentally wrong? Because if so, strange as it may seem, I'll have to disagree. "We" decided that it is wrong, but why would it be fundamentally so? Things like morals are pretty much just the "average opinion of the group", they don't stem from laws of physics or such..
-
Are you implying that murder is fundamentally wrong? Because if so, strange as it may seem, I'll have to disagree. "We" decided that it is wrong, but why would it be fundamentally so? Things like morals are pretty much just the "average opinion of the group", they don't stem from laws of physics or such..
-
Gay marriage: Roman Catholic archbishops step up fight[^] "The letter says Roman Catholics have a duty to make sure it does not happen." They seem to have missed the reformation, or the fact that the UK legal system is secular. They should have no more say in the matter than any of the other citizens in the UK. The legislation doesn't mandate religious bodies to solemnise gay marriages, so I don't see that this is any of their business. To say it will "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world" is just wrong in the parts of the world that matter, and I don't see why we should care anyway. I'd have thought they'd have kept a pretty low profile, seeing as they have lost their moral authority by keeping certain "priestly activities" under wraps - given that is quite possibly the result of repressing normal sexuality, homosexual or otherwise.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]The catholic church is a failed institution. They are one of the main reasons why I don't believe in organized religion or religious institutions. I can only hope the entire world, especially practicing catholics, come to realize that the church has failed them and the inhabitants of this world. BTW, if I pissed off any catholics here, then I think you really need to analyze your religion and religious views. Are they your views or the views that have been shoved down your throat your entire life. Freedom of thought and life, without church intervention. Remember, the church is man made and man run. God did not start the Catholic church.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)