Sex outside marriage is punishable by death? I think that genuinely believing that sex outside marriage should be punishable by death should be punishable by death. Who cares what the Bible or the Quran state - the napkin faith is the correct one please log in to view this image
Toby, Marriage is a sacrament. to receive that sacrament you need to qualify for it. You need to understand what it is about. If you have no intention of honouring the meaning and purpose of that sacrament then you do not qualify to receive it. It is like telling a man it is discrimination that he is not allowed gender realignment surgery to become a man because he is already a man. That is how stupid your argument is. It seems to me that you want to adopt a liberal position but it is entirely illiberal of you to shoot your mouth of from a position of total and utter ignorance.
What about if we don't go anywhere near your church and have no desire to hear what your churches opinion is on the matter - do you still get to tell us if we qualify for it?
I don't get to tell anyone anything Mick. I am not a spokesman for the church. Keith O'Brien is asking for a referendum because interest in the matter is such that the topic meets the criteria to have one. In that instance I would hope for an open and frank debate on the topic where all sides can benefit from the exchange of information. In terms of the law your scenario is not that simple. Special provisions are made for Religious institutions that exempt them from certain responsibilities. I would think it unlikely and undemocratic that legislation would be drafted that specifically exempted certain faiths.
That seems to be that you are telling Toby what Marriage is. I don't think Toby ever asked or even cares what the Catholic position is, yet you are pushing it on him as fact. My own personal opinion which I've made before is this is nothing to do with the church so it doesn't even deserve mention of any church views - it's been clearly defined that the churches can still keep their own rules on this - so how about they leave the rest of society alone to decide for ourselves whether or not gays can get married in non religious services.
Actually sorry Toby did make a point on the Catholic position but my second point stands. I just wish those with religion could stop pushing their theocratics into a debate which was never intended to even include their churches.
I still don't know what exactly the proposed referendum would address. That a same-sex union can not legally be called a "marriage"? That a same-sex union can not have a "wedding" in any religious building? If, say, the Anglican church decides to allow same-sex weddings, is Keith trying to make it illegal for them to do that?
I was very clear that this was the position I was adopting on more than one occasion. Anyhow, this is a discussion about Keith O'Brien and his take on gay marriage. It would be a strange thing for me not to be discussing the topic in these terms. If Toby does not care what position the Catholic Church holds on it then how the **** can he castigate me for defending it? EDIT: seen the next response. Ignore And I would largely agree with you on that, however when I asked a mate of mine who is gay why he wanted gay marriage, he cited a desire for it to be in a church. If that is the case, then it is fundamentally at odds with what the point and purpose of the Christian sacrament of marriage is. If the churches don't "own" the idea of marriage, then what is wrong with civil partnerships (as you enjoyed)?
You don't get to tell me that my marriage was not a marriage but was a civil partnership. The organisation which you claim owns marriage is the very same organisation that imprisoned Galileo for claiming that the Earth orbited around the Sun - they are an authority on nothing.
You said you were married by a registrar in a civil ceremony. In essence, this is tje crux of the debate. Who is to tell people who did not receive the sacrament of marriage that they are not married. Stop talking ****e. I said no such thing Aye, the very same organisation as 400 years ago. There was no political motivation to it and the Church wasn't funding their own astronomers at the same time.
O'Brien want the law to stay as is - no marriage, only civil partnerships for gays. If the law is passed the Catholic Church do not need to perform these ceremonies. Other Churches may proceed with it. The act of union will be allowed to be called 'marriage'. The Catholic Church, a minority group, wish to ensure that no gay can be married anywhere in Scotland and are passing round special collection bowls to fund their campaign. If the law is not passed then no church/religious group will be able to perform the ceremony and the act of union will not be called marriage.
Thats the second time you have used that napkin pic, you running out of ideas? or is it simply how you like to roll? basing it on what you claim your 'beliefs' are then what you 'practice' i would say it is pretty much written on a napkin thought you were ex catholic? do you not know that sex outside of marriage is a sin an punishable?
By the way, the church opposed civil partnerships, so claiming that "the absolute institution of marriage" in a religious sense is what they're trying to protect or the right to refuse to marry certain groups is baws. The church in Scotland (and other places, I'm sure) opposed the introduction of civil partnerships. Just let folk get on with it, man. EDIT: The kirk came away with a similar statement opposing equal marriage yesterday as well - ****ers.
Are you suprised that they opposed civil partnerships? their belief is that homosexuality is wrong/sin, so of course they would oppose it
Their belief (that homosexuality is wrong) is based on one oft-quoted part of Leviticus. Having read Leviticus, I'm surprised that the church don't oppose the following: Shaving the side of your head Eating shellfish Getting tattoos Not stoning your kids to death for misbehaving Wearing mixed fabrics Sowing different seeds in the same field. C'mon to ****, man. Times change and using only certain bits out of ancient laws when it suits is pretty stinking.
You've fallen into the honeysuckle trap and responded to the ultimate WUM. See you in 4 weeks, Bib. Once TFWNN is finished with you.
I kind of agree to your last point, in that the church should have stuck to their guns in things like women priests. Its there willingness to 'accept' that has lead to the marriage scenario. I have been saying this all along TBH If anything the churches 'willingness' to change has put other religions who havent 'given in' at risk of legal action against
