Doesn't matter what he thinks of it. Marriages were around before Christianity. In one of mankind's more curious convergant anthropological nuances, marriage ceremonies exist in pretty much all cultures - most, not all, involve monogamy. It can, of course, be argued that marriage in the middle ages (in Europe) was a social act - combining families or clans. It isn't God giving his grace to a partnership. If O'Brien thinks that, then I presume he doesn't count Hindu weddings as weddings.
Of course it matters what he thinks a marriage is. It colours his view on it. A view that he is espousing to his congregation and influencing how they feel. I asked a mate who is gay what he thought gay marriage meant to him and he said it was the right to be married in a church if he wanted to and also "the very fact there are 2 separate terms for a legal partnership between 2 people regardless of gender is the point". The first part I have a problem with, the second part I don't. The first part is something that Keith O'Brien should have his say over.
And I do accept that the Catholic Church is intrinsically homophobic. And that is something I have a problem with but when it comes to the meaning of the sacraments, which marriage is then there is not any room for movement.
Marriage - two people going official in their commitment to each other. If Keith O'Brien's calling for a vote which could result in the forcible restraining of homos trying to get married or the ministers trying to marry them, then he can **** off. He's allowed his say, and I'm allowed to say his say's a dangerous, primitive crock of demagogic guano. I don't care what the Catholic Church do - if people are stupid enough to want to be married by those irrational idiots, they should think twice. When these God-botherers call out to their political class brothers to put gays in a position where they could be violently discriminated against by the State, that's what's offensive.
This is not what the Scottish debate's about. The proposition is that religions that do not wish to marry gays don't have to. The Catholic Church doesn't want to so that should be an end of his interaction. The problem is that the Catholic Church in Scotland want a referendum to stop other religious groups doing it, forcing Catholic doctrine on the rest of the country. This is why I object. O'Brien wants a referendum on this but he's an unelected leader speaking on behalf of a minority of people. His old fashioned views and doctrine are being respected but he wants to enforce his views on the rest.
To be fair the Priest is correct on this issue. Buggeration should not be encouraged. Bestiality will be next, mark my words.
So tell me the difference between gay marriage and civil partnerships? You are judging him by what your understanding of marriage is.
Can you post a link to the story please? I find that difficult to believe, but if true, then I would have to agree.
No idea, I don't care for marriage having any sort of legal status anyway, it should be up to the two signatories how they phrase the contract of commitment. You don't need government approval for that contract to be binding. And if insurance companies offer incentives for married couples, say, it would be up to their legal team to examine the marriage contract and make the decision. Much like drugs, it's not an issue of legalizing something; it's more about removing it from legal control altogether and just letting the free love happen. So again, what I oppose is the politicization of this matter - the belief that the general population should be allowed to determine the lifestyle choices of other human beings who aren't harming each other. Moreover that governments are right to have a say in who marries who anyway. Patronizing, nanny state insult. This Cardinal ****wit is clearly advocating that, and so should be criticized. Do you think a referendum on this is morally acceptable in an enlightened society?
I don't believe that the Catholic church or any other Church gets to take ownership of the idea of marriage, even if they have their own sacraments on it. As someone else said marriage was around long before the church. I do agree though that a Church should never be forced to marry gay couples if it's own doctrine does not accept them - people who want to be married in an organisation that abhors them are either on the wind up or stupid.
the fact of the matter is that church weddings are considered the "norm". I assume we are talking about people who want to gain recognition from a church. Keith O'Brien has a job to promote his church and his vision of marriage is the administering of a holy sacrament within a church setting. I believe that people are getting confused between gay marriage and formal legal recognition of gay unions. My own idea would be for a priest to act as a registrar to legally recognise the union, to host the ceremony in a church and for the priest to bless that Union. But it cannot be called marriage, because it isn't a marriage as a church would understand it to be.
Haven't been following this issue so I'm none too sure what is going on. They already have civil partnerships. I was of the understanding that a civil partnership afforded the same legal rights as a marriage. Is that so?
So in the US, when Black people had to sit in a different part of the bus it was fine, as they were still allowed to get the bus, according to Rebel the Pope-loving cretin
Then what are they after? To force religious institutions into "blessing" their union in a religious service?
