| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 126453 | 2012-08-28 23:09:00 | Catholic Church objects to 'same sex marriage' | mzee (3324) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1297539 | 2012-08-28 23:09:00 | Maybe the Catholic fathers are scared that they may have to marry all the boys that they molest? | mzee (3324) | ||
| 1297540 | 2012-08-28 23:12:00 | That is rich, coming from them. :blush: I don't want same sex marriage to pass into law. I wouldn't like to have to specify whether my marriage was a conventional one or an SSM one. I wonder if there will be a backlash when people have to fill out forms....census etc. I refuse to fill out my ethnic origins and religion as it is now. Perhaps they could think up an alternative name for SSM's Ken |
kenj (9738) | ||
| 1297541 | 2012-08-28 23:46:00 | The church shouldn't have a say in a political matter such as same sex marriage. The laws should reflect society as a whole, not just some of it. Hopefully the bill passes into law as it rightfully should. |
pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 1297542 | 2012-08-29 00:13:00 | I am pretty much indifferent to ssm, but I object to catholics (an antonym of majestic proportions) attempting to dictate their concepts as dogma to others. | R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1297543 | 2012-08-29 00:19:00 | I am pretty much indifferent to ssm, but I object to catholics (an antonym of majestic proportions) attempting to dictate their concepts as dogma to others. However that argument is a double-edged sword, and now we have the gays / lesbians also attempting to dictate their concept of marriage which has *traditionally* been one man and one woman to the rest of the world, when there are clearly people who want to be able to differentiate between a traditional marriage and a same-sex marriage, as kenj mentioned. Again, as kenj mentioned, it has been suggested an alternative name be created for those who want to identify with a heterosexual marriage, _similar_ to what France has. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1297544 | 2012-08-29 00:24:00 | But the whole origin of 'marriage' comes from the church, where they have dictated that each man shall have one and only one woman, and will stay with that woman until death. Society without these guiding principles would follow its hedonistic tendencies of shagging anyone and everyone whenever they could. Most religeous guidelines have their origin in guiding society to what is best for a long and healthy life. Monogamy and chastity is certainly the best strategy in a world with STD's (like all of our history until now). Now that many STDs are treatable or non fatal there is less to justify the chastity and monogamy, and society has largely been drifting from following those principals anyway. HIV however remains a bit of a fly in the ointment. Given gays are at greater risk of HIV the added expectation of faithfullness that would come with a gay marriage would tend to have a limiting influence on HIV spread, which is a good thing for all of society. So yes, let them wed if they wish. When the church fails to adapt to change it only makes itself appear stupid and bound in history and tradition rather than in the reality of modern life. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1297545 | 2012-08-29 00:31:00 | It's an odd issue to me, I don't much care if people want to officially declare their partnership whatever their sexual orientation. But marriage to me is more a religious ceremony than anything, if you don't practice or agree with the religion why would you want to perform their ceremony in the first place? You can declare your partnership to the world without a churches approval or a legal document. Of course there is also the legal side of Marriage - making you parter your legal next of Kin and co-owner of your possessions etc but I don't see how that has anything to do with the Church and that part I understand same sex couples wanting. If the catholics object so what, just don't have your gay wedding in a catholic church. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1297546 | 2012-08-29 01:03:00 | The church shouldn't have a say in a political matter such as same sex marriage. The laws should reflect society as a whole, not just some of it. Hopefully the bill passes into law as it rightfully should.Marriage is performed by a church (generally) so why shouldnt they have a say? Maybe its politics that should butt out. I believe the idea of marriage is a celebration of the committment 2 people choose to share between one another. That committment can be for a number of reasons, traditionally it has been to reproduce - which takes a Male and a Female. However it can also be a committment of companionship between 2 people - which is all a same-sex marriage is. I think it does need a different name as has been suggested. Committments of companionship between a man and woman are those who do not choose to reproduce, be parents and have children for whatever reason (professional, age, disability, etc). And personally I think that should apply to same-sex couples as well. Meaning, same sex couples should not try and be man-and-woman and raise children - that for me is unnatural and wrong, it is the choice they have made and is where the line should be drawn. My opinion only. |
Iantech (16386) | ||
| 1297547 | 2012-08-29 01:15:00 | That is rich, coming from them. :blush: I don't want same sex marriage to pass into law. I wouldn't like to have to specify whether my marriage was a conventional one or an SSM one. I wonder if there will be a backlash when people have to fill out forms....census etc. I refuse to fill out my ethnic origins and religion as it is now. Perhaps they could think up an alternative name for SSM's Ken I agree with you, Ken. I do not agree with same sex marriage. It is a travesty. Marriage is and always has been, between a man and a woman. To say otherwise is to go against the santicty of marriage and all that the majority of humanity believe in. Making same sex marriage legal is saying that homosexuals and lesbians are normal, which is far from the truth. Making same sex marriage legal is bringing homosexuals and lesbians up to the same level as heterosexuals and is saying that they are not deviants which is far from the truth. It is unfortunate that this type of thing has reached the voting stage in parliament. Do they really believe that this way of thinking is representative of the majority of voters? I don't think so. It is a minority running roughshod over the majority. It's a sad day for this country saying yes to same sex marriage, just because some overseas countries have done so. Surely there are much more important issues to debate and vote for in parliament? |
Roscoe (6288) | ||
| 1297548 | 2012-08-29 01:24:00 | Same sex marriage is against nature. Clearly, our bunch of useless politicians have nothing better (and also don't know how and what ) to do. |
bk T (215) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 | |||||