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
Already a member and forgot your password? Click
Discussion in 'General Chat' started by SFG75, May 29, 2007.
Hugh just made the best post in this thread. :lol:
Some unhappy spouses or ex-spouses around the forum?
In Scotland we have civil partnership for gay couples but gays want gay marriage. The Catholic Church in Scotland is opposed to gay marriage as they argue the bill is a direct attack on their religious values. The Scottish government has made it clear that no religious or secular organisation will be forced to perform wedding ceremonies, unfortunately though the bill does have a wider implication and that is the effect on moral teaching in denominational state schools... Messy.
I never quite understand all the commotion around the discussion of allowing gay marriage here in Scotland. Especially when one starts to object to gay marriage because that would, in their mind, taint the values traditionally attached to the word marriage.
I'm from the Netherlands originally, and it's been legal there since 2001, and there has been very little discussion about semantics.
I do agree with Hugh though, let everyone have their share of misery, if they so choose.
If it means it becomes more difficult for people to teach children that something that doesn't harm anyone in any way is somehow "immoral", then I'd say that's more of a positive side effect than a problem. I fail to see how "treat everyone with equal respect" can be a controversial message in moral teaching.
Don't confuse secular moral teaching with religious moral teaching, they are not the same.
Why not? And if they're not, isn't that something that should be addressed?
Does Scotland have only Catholic schools? I don't quite understand the implication on moral teaching.
Isn't the moral that you should commit yourself to a relationship? No one needs to comment on the composition of that relationship.
I can't see that the Catholic church has much of a leg to stand on after the way its hushed up "gay" activities and abuse. I think thats a topic for another thread though.
Well, if you're saying that secular morals are superior to religious morals then your form of address may be tantamount to religious persecution.
Scotland has denominational and non-denominational schools, we therefore allow a variety of teaching. I'm of the secular view, my morals are not formed by the Bible but what gives me authority to impose my morals on Catholics any more than on Muslims or Buddists? The child abuse cover-up was terrible but I would not judge the majority of priests or Catholics by that scandal.
Agreed Bob. I'm Catholic and I'd hate to be presumed a child abuser because of that.
How would you be imposing your morals on Catholics or any other religion if the gay marriage became legal? They could still choose to teach whatever they wish in the schools they run. They could also choose whether or not to perform gay marriages. I am not seeing the correlation. I would imagine my marriage looks very different from a marriage in say, Saudi Arabia. Rights and freedoms are not religion dependent, or rather, they should not be.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I truly want to understand what you mean, and I'm just not getting it.
If you're a practicing Catholic then your morals are defined by your faith and your faith states that being gay is a sin and gays can't enter into marriage because it's a holy state of union. The problem is if the state recognises gay marriage how can the state school teach the opposite? The gay lobby also advocate that anti-gay indoctrination is wrong. I don't support the Catholic Church's view but I can see why they feel they need to speak out, it's that or become silent participants in their increasing non-relevance and extinction.
Just an idle thought, while it seems logical and reasonable, and in many places legal for gay marriage there still has to be some assistance from the opposite sex if the couple wish to have a family unless they go the adoption route. This, of course, may change in the future.
What does a sperm or egg donor have to do with whether or not a gay couple should be allowed to marry?
No, it doesn't. Nobody has the religious right to persecute others, and saying so doesn't in itself amount to persecution. To quote a phrase, "my right to swing my fists around end where another person's face begins." AFAIK, nobody's trying to make it illegal to say God hates gays; they just don't think the fact that some people interpret the Bible that way should have an influence on secular law.
Like I said, positive side effect.
I'd say they have a good case, since unlike the supposed "immorality" of being gay, teaching children to condemn people for being gay actually does hurt people.
If the catholic church stands and falls with the "right" to condemn people for doing something that's of absolutely no consequence and hurts absolutely no one, then maybe they should fall. I don't believe they do. They've adapted to other things, they'll adapt to this too.
I'm not sure that my post was whether or not they should be allowed to marry - I was making an observation that if they wished to have a family then they would need assistance from the opposite sex, pointing to the fact that their union was not in and of itself capable of producing offspring. Once upon a time one of the reasons behind marriage was the production usually of a son and heir.
Turn that argument around, some Catholics don't think the fact that many people interpret secular law that way should have an influence on Catholic doctrine... Where do we go from here?
So you appreciate why, from the Catholic point of view, they have to disagree.
I agree with you completely but that is my personal moral code. Teaching children that being gay is sinful is a core part of the Catholic faith and has been since the formation of the church. If a priest turned to you and asked you what good reason could you provide him for allowing the state to divert his flock into hell, what answer could you give him that would not be tantamount to persecution?
Like I said it's not that I don't agree with you, I'm pointing out the reason why Catholics can't agree with us. I don't want to stomp all over Catholic Church any more than I want to stomp all over gays and while your secular blunt instrument may have a crude effect on the Chapel it's not going to work on the Mosque.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
Conscious Bob, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Catholic Church still doesn't support the use of condoms, right? They just tolerate it's use?
I think you misunderstood me, sorry if I was unclear. What I meant was, that if public opinion becoming increasingly tolerant of gay people makes it more difficult for the church to teach children to be intolerant towards gay people, then that's a good thing. And since I can't see how anyone can credibly argue that the right to condemn others to hell is an indispensible part of a religion supposedly founded on love and forgiveness, I suppose it will mean that the church will sooner or later have to relax their stance - as they have done on similar issues in the past. Either that, or run the risk of people not listening to them.
I would tell him that as far as I know nobody's trying to take away his right to say and think anything he wants, but that the right to say something includes the right for others to disagree, and that his freedoms, beliefs and opinions don't trump those of others. If he wants to tell people that gay people are evil sinners, or that thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, or that you can buy your way out of purgatory, or that mental illness is demonic possession, or that wives are the property of husbands, or that you can't eat a burger on Fridays, or any other belief once considered core parts of catholic faith, he's free to do so. But others are under no obligation to listen to him, and he's no more being persecuted by the existence of secular laws allowing same-sex marriages than hindus are being persecuted by the existence of steakhouses.
Ah yes, the scary muslims. Well, I agree that there are muslims, as well as christians, whose views on minority rights can hardly be called enlightened. But wouldn't that make it more important to establish that secular law is independent of what certain religions consider sinful? If you set a precedent that the Catholic church are allowed to block certain rights for everyone, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, what leg do you have to stand on when someone else complains that their religion doesn't allow some right the rest of us take for granted?
Not wanting to stomp over anyone's rights is admirable, and you're right: nobody should have their rights taken from them. But in this case, the rights are not comparable. It's apples and oranges. On the one hand, you have very real people's rights to things that affect them in their everyday life - not least, the right to be seen as full members of society. On the other, you have an organisation's right to tell others how they may or may not live their lives. See above re: my right to wave my fists around.
And judge not, lest ye be judged. :innocent: But I agree; I just don't think that blocking equal rights for minorities just because it makes some people uncomfortable qualifies as peacemaking.
On the pragmatic front, gay marriage is good for the economy.
Separate names with a comma.