UK: Catholics will be told of their ‘duty to oppose gay marriage’ at Mass this weekend

  • metta

    Posts: 39165

    Mar 11, 2012 6:54 AM GMT

    Catholics will be told of their ‘duty to oppose gay marriage’ at Mass this weekend

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/03/06/catholics-will-be-told-of-their-duty-to-oppose-gay-marriage-at-mass-this-weekend/
  • JBA1111

    Posts: 3

    Mar 11, 2012 7:38 AM GMT
    And? Religions have every right to do so and if you do not agree, stay out of their business.
  • metta

    Posts: 39165

    Mar 11, 2012 7:52 AM GMT
    ^
    No Thank You! I will not ignore it when they do things to harm people. It is important for people to be aware of what they are up to. Thankfully, many people are leaving the church because of their behavior.
  • JBA1111

    Posts: 3

    Mar 11, 2012 8:07 AM GMT
    If they preached hate I could see what you are saying. They are and have always been against gay marriage. I don't understand the "harm" you're talking about...

    They do not teach to hate homosexuals.. only the actions that take place between them. Just like they preach against all sin.

    I still don't get the harm you discuss.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2012 1:39 PM GMT
    Religion should be banned. It preached hate, and causes gay people to kill themselves. If I were Catholic, this would worry the fuck out of me.

    For the poster who says they're not preaching hate, uhh, YES THEY ARE! They're teaching their gay members to hate themselves.

    Oh, and BEING GAY IS NOT A SIN! The fact that they preach it is, is a form of hate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2012 2:42 PM GMT
    JBA1111 said

    I still don't get the harm you discuss.
    Sure ya do.. you "preach it".. Yeah, I got your number..icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2012 2:51 PM GMT
    JBA1111 saidIf they preached hate I could see what you are saying. They are and have always been against gay marriage. I don't understand the "harm" you're talking about...

    They do not teach to hate homosexuals.. only the actions that take place between them. Just like they preach against all sin.

    I still don't get the harm you discuss.


    If they didn't, I imagine you wouldn't have to hide your face like that.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2012 3:03 PM GMT
    JBA1111 saidAnd? Religions have every right to do so and if you do not agree, stay out of their business.


    If they would extend this courtesy to others then we would to them.
  • Laurence

    Posts: 942

    Mar 11, 2012 3:25 PM GMT
    Gay marriage will become legal in the UK in the next couple of years. FACT.

    No amount of bleeting from religions will stop that happening.

    If they want to stop marriages in their churches, so be it. We can get married in churches who practice tolerance and not bigotry.

    Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else.

    Lozx
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2012 3:42 PM GMT
    As a Catholic myself, I will admit it is hard. I understand where they are coming from with the teaching that marriage is the bringing of a woman and man together through God's grace for life and that it is made for procreation with said man and woman but saying that they're against civil unions is just wrong. I'm not bashing the Church or anything but if they got their message across better in regards to gays instead of seeming totally anti-gay as well as staying quiet when attacks of violence are conducted against gays by religious 'do-gooders' then maybe things might be a lot different.

    For those who don't know this, the Church is NOT against gay people as in being gay is not a sin but they teach that if you are gay then you have to stay abstinent from the relationship and sex and all that jazz. I really don't understand how they expect people to do that for their entire lives when they did not choose to be gay. Sometimes it's hard for me to take in...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2012 4:32 PM GMT
    So much for separation of church and state (which I'm quite sure is the same in the UK). The government should never have become entangled with marriage. They should change the name of a marriage contract to civil union for everyone and leave the churches to fight over who gets married. It's that simple. Opposite sex couples would no longer get a marriage license but rather simply a civil union contract just like gay couples. Then the churches can do the holly stuff to call it a marriage. There are already plenty of churches that are happy to perform same sex marriages so if a gay couple wants their union sanctified they won't have a problem.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14380

    Mar 11, 2012 5:01 PM GMT
    I think that it is time to tell Pope Nazi to mind his own damn business. Instead of sticking his nose into public policy in other countries, he should be concerned about Closet Case International known as the Vatican and the hypocritical, pedophile institution that it manages.
  • Trepeat

    Posts: 546

    Mar 11, 2012 5:13 PM GMT
    I think we should get more Catholic gay people campaigning against oral sex- both in and out of straight, married relationships. It`s purpose is not procreation, therefore, isn`t it just as sinful as sodomy? We`ll ruin hundreds of thousands of catholic marriages by instilling the fear in women that if they blow their husbands, they`ll suffer eternal damnation. It kind of seems like a fitting revenge, to me.
  • metta

    Posts: 39165

    Mar 11, 2012 5:36 PM GMT
    friendormate saidSo much for separation of church and state (which I'm quite sure is the same in the UK). The government should never have become entangled with marriage. They should change the name of a marriage contract to civil union for everyone and leave the churches to fight over who gets married. It's that simple. Opposite sex couples would no longer get a marriage license but rather simply a civil union contract just like gay couples. Then the churches can do the holly stuff to call it a marriage. There are already plenty of churches that are happy to perform same sex marriages so if a gay couple wants their union sanctified they won't have a problem.



    (repost)

    Marriage was originally a civil ceremony, not a religious one. Marriage was originally about an exchange of property. Women were originally thought of as property. That is why they had dowries.

    "This was done for many different reasons. It was to ensure alliances, binding powerful families together, and strengthening weaker families. It helped people survive in the barbaric era of early humanity. It was also to ensure that a mans children were biologically his. The female children were the mans property which he would bargain off to strengthen the power of his family while the male children would work and bring in money, also strengthening the family. Marriage existed long before Christianity existed, therefore it was created by man for survival purposes."

    Marriage has continuously evolved, and is still evolving today. It has never been static, even though many religious leaders would like you to think otherwise. And to say that only religion has a right to decide who can get married is wrong, at least on a government recognition basis. Do not confuse civil marriage with religious marriage.

    And isn't it a good thing that this has evolved over time and that woman are no longer thought of as property, that you don't have to be white to get married, etc.

    And in regards to religion, "the bible "says" nothing about marriage - what they bible is "talking about" is the rite of holy matrimony and that is not a right, but a religious concept. It is a rite of passage like birth, puberty ceremonies, betrothal, matrimony and death.

    Marriage is a legal concept and always has been. It's about property rights, dowries, bride price, where families will live, who gets what land or goats. Marriage is not about religion and matrimony is not marriage."
  • Mepark

    Posts: 806

    Mar 11, 2012 5:45 PM GMT
    Is this new? The Catholic church has and will always oppose gay marriage. Turn your attention to Protestantism. They are far more evil and dangerous.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Mar 12, 2012 12:02 AM GMT
    The Vatican as usual ignores the church's history, which would show that during one period there were male priests that were paired off in some sort of "union." The greatest library in the world of ancient documents, the Vatican's, will no doubt never allow anyone to find its own documents which would confirm this.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Mar 12, 2012 12:08 AM GMT
    metta8 said
    friendormate saidSo much for separation of church and state (which I'm quite sure is the same in the UK). The government should never have become entangled with marriage. They should change the name of a marriage contract to civil union for everyone and leave the churches to fight over who gets married. It's that simple. Opposite sex couples would no longer get a marriage license but rather simply a civil union contract just like gay couples. Then the churches can do the holly stuff to call it a marriage. There are already plenty of churches that are happy to perform same sex marriages so if a gay couple wants their union sanctified they won't have a problem.



    (repost)

    Marriage was originally a civil ceremony, not a religious one. Marriage was originally about an exchange of property. . . .

    Marriage is a legal concept and always has been. It's about property rights, dowries, bride price, where families will live, who gets what land or goats.


    In Europe and England (which is where the Catholic church historically ruled), very few people who were not of the propertied class got married at all before the 17th century. So, if marriage were some religious rite, it wasn't much followed for most of the church's history.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2012 12:31 AM GMT
    MarkRoger saidAs a Catholic myself, I will admit it is hard. I understand where they are coming from with the teaching that marriage is the bringing of a woman and man together through God's grace for life and that it is made for procreation with said man and woman but saying that they're against civil unions is just wrong.


    It's a convenient story to tell, but it's bs. If it really was all about bringing a man and a woman together to procreate, then the church would not allow post-menopausal women to get married or couples who have no interest in having children or any person who has any physical problems with conception.


    Let's go by the assumption that the church believes that homosexuality is a sin. (Some would argue that it's an interpretation, and that the bible doesn't actually say homosexuality is a sin, but let's not get into that for the moment.)

    So you accept that the bible says homosexuality is a sin and that's why the church is so vocal in opposing so-called "sinful" gay marriage.
    There are plenty of other sins that the church hardly ever makes a peep about. Keeping sabbath holy, lying, adultery, dishonoring your parents, swearing, and theft are part of the 10 commandments, yet seem to be less important of sins that homosexuality?!!

    Why does the church care less about the 10 commandments than it does about homosexuality? Because its congregation is more excited about the gay issues than the biblical issues. If it keeps the pews filled and the coffers full, it's suddenly very important to the church.
    Basically the anti-gay crusade is a way of keeping the church relevant today.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2012 4:08 PM GMT
    metta8 said
    friendormate saidSo much for separation of church and state (which I'm quite sure is the same in the UK). The government should never have become entangled with marriage. They should change the name of a marriage contract to civil union for everyone and leave the churches to fight over who gets married. It's that simple. Opposite sex couples would no longer get a marriage license but rather simply a civil union contract just like gay couples. Then the churches can do the holly stuff to call it a marriage. There are already plenty of churches that are happy to perform same sex marriages so if a gay couple wants their union sanctified they won't have a problem.



    (repost)

    Marriage was originally a civil ceremony, not a religious one. Marriage was originally about an exchange of property. Women were originally thought of as property. That is why they had dowries.

    "This was done for many different reasons. It was to ensure alliances, binding powerful families together, and strengthening weaker families. It helped people survive in the barbaric era of early humanity. It was also to ensure that a mans children were biologically his. The female children were the mans property which he would bargain off to strengthen the power of his family while the male children would work and bring in money, also strengthening the family. Marriage existed long before Christianity existed, therefore it was created by man for survival purposes."

    Marriage has continuously evolved, and is still evolving today. It has never been static, even though many religious leaders would like you to think otherwise. And to say that only religion has a right to decide who can get married is wrong, at least on a government recognition basis. Do not confuse civil marriage with religious marriage.

    And isn't it a good thing that this has evolved over time and that woman are no longer thought of as property, that you don't have to be white to get married, etc.

    And in regards to religion, "the bible "says" nothing about marriage - what they bible is "talking about" is the rite of holy matrimony and that is not a right, but a religious concept. It is a rite of passage like birth, puberty ceremonies, betrothal, matrimony and death.

    Marriage is a legal concept and always has been. It's about property rights, dowries, bride price, where families will live, who gets what land or goats. Marriage is not about religion and matrimony is not marriage."


    I don't think we disagree here. I'm saying pretty much the same thing. I witnessed the marriage of one of my sisters in a city hall. Neither she nor her husband are religious. If the zealots believe that marriage is a sacred institution, then government needs to separate the contract from the sacrament. For the most part I think this is already done but since we still use the word marriage for what is effectively a civil union for folks like my sister and brother-in-law, it opens the door for the zealots to argue their beliefs. I'm sure just changing the name of the contract from marriage to civil union would not shut the zealots up but it would certainly take away any ammunition they believe they have. If it were originally established as such, my sister would be in a civil union which from a legal stand point is no different than my two other sisters both of whom were married in churches. The later, however, would be married simply by virtue of having their union sanctified. So I'm not suggesting we need one union for same-sex and another for opposite-sex. That simply adds paperwork and bureaucracy. Rather we need to sterilize government of any religious affiliation. There are plenty of churches willing to perform same-sex marriages for the couples interested in having their union sanctified.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2012 5:12 PM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2012 5:21 PM GMT
    MolaMola said
    MarkRoger saidAs a Catholic myself, I will admit it is hard. I understand where they are coming from with the teaching that marriage is the bringing of a woman and man together through God's grace for life and that it is made for procreation with said man and woman but saying that they're against civil unions is just wrong.


    It's a convenient story to tell, but it's bs. If it really was all about bringing a man and a woman together to procreate, then the church would not allow post-menopausal women to get married or couples who have no interest in having children or any person who has any physical problems with conception.


    Let's go by the assumption that the church believes that homosexuality is a sin. (Some would argue that it's an interpretation, and that the bible doesn't actually say homosexuality is a sin, but let's not get into that for the moment.)

    So you accept that the bible says homosexuality is a sin and that's why the church is so vocal in opposing so-called "sinful" gay marriage.
    There are plenty of other sins that the church hardly ever makes a peep about. Keeping sabbath holy, lying, adultery, dishonoring your parents, swearing, and theft are part of the 10 commandments, yet seem to be less important of sins that homosexuality?!!

    Why does the church care less about the 10 commandments than it does about homosexuality? Because its congregation is more excited about the gay issues than the biblical issues. If it keeps the pews filled and the coffers full, it's suddenly very important to the church.
    Basically the anti-gay crusade is a way of keeping the church relevant today.

    These are very good points, Molamola! As well there are those seven deadly sins, gluttony being one of them and many pews are sturdily sat upon by the very overweight, yet nary a protesting peep is heard in the church.

  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Mar 12, 2012 5:59 PM GMT
    GonzoTheGreat said
    JBA1111 saidAnd? Religions have every right to do so and if you do not agree, stay out of their business.


    If they would extend this courtesy to others then we would to them.


    +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2012 6:03 PM GMT
    Laurence saidGay marriage will become legal in the UK in the next couple of years. FACT.

    No amount of bleeting from religions will stop that happening.


    Gay marriage will become legal everywhere eventually. And the more places it becomes legal the faster it will become legal everywhere else. It's inevitable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2012 6:09 PM GMT
    MolaMola saidBasically the anti-gay crusade is a way of keeping the church relevant today.

    Not to mention the US Republican Party, trying in 2012 to repeat the great success it had in 2004 with the Karl Rove strategy to demonize gays for votes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2012 2:28 AM GMT
    MolaMola said
    MarkRoger saidAs a Catholic myself, I will admit it is hard. I understand where they are coming from with the teaching that marriage is the bringing of a woman and man together through God's grace for life and that it is made for procreation with said man and woman but saying that they're against civil unions is just wrong.


    It's a convenient story to tell, but it's bs. If it really was all about bringing a man and a woman together to procreate, then the church would not allow post-menopausal women to get married or couples who have no interest in having children or any person who has any physical problems with conception.


    Let's go by the assumption that the church believes that homosexuality is a sin. (Some would argue that it's an interpretation, and that the bible doesn't actually say homosexuality is a sin, but let's not get into that for the moment.)

    So you accept that the bible says homosexuality is a sin and that's why the church is so vocal in opposing so-called "sinful" gay marriage.
    There are plenty of other sins that the church hardly ever makes a peep about. Keeping sabbath holy, lying, adultery, dishonoring your parents, swearing, and theft are part of the 10 commandments, yet seem to be less important of sins that homosexuality?!!

    Why does the church care less about the 10 commandments than it does about homosexuality? Because its congregation is more excited about the gay issues than the biblical issues. If it keeps the pews filled and the coffers full, it's suddenly very important to the church.
    Basically the anti-gay crusade is a way of keeping the church relevant today.


    I agree that if they are so vocal on the gay issue they should be vocal on all issues. Especially since being gay is not the sin in their eyes but the actions. Not only that, but it's also taught that no man can judge another as we're all sinners. I for one have said on a Catholic forum I was on, I tried to bring up those facts and some members did agree that the Church should make its stance clear on gays because everyone assumes that the Church teaches that all gays must be destroyed or something AND they should be more forceful on a lot of other issues.

    I have seen that the Catholic Church has its flaws and right now, I am having a hard time believing some of its teachings. I will always believe in God and Jesus but knowing the power that man has to manipulate things, sometimes the Bible itself doesn't seem like something I can fully trust... the only thing I know I can trust is that there is a God and Jesus... it's not only because I'm gay I'm thinking about this, I tried to think of myself as straight and whether I'd still have these thoughts and then I see the things that go on and a blind eye is given to by the Church and it just irks me...