Catholic Church in anti-gay marriage stance.

[Gymnophoria]

We all know that gay marriage and the catholic church have never gone hand in hand. But the BBC have released an article where high ranking members of the church in Scotland outright slam gay marriage and class it as "meaningless" claiming that allowing it would "shame Scotland in the eyes of the world.

The full story is here.

Personally, I don't see how anyone has any right to define someone else's marriage as meaningless, especially on such prejudiced grounds as this. If the church were to come out and say "Allowing black people into our religion is meaningless and would shame Scotland in the eyes of the world." then there would be a massive uproar because that's just racism. So why isn't there a problem when it's gay people? What's the difference?

This really annoys me and I would LOVE to have a go at the bishop they talked to and explain exactly why every one of his statements are ridiculous.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Fictional]

Makes me glad that our society is based on the Anglican church, not the Catholic church

[Power Cosmic]

You saw my thoughts in the facebook status Nat, but I'll censor it a wee bit and summarise with; "This is why I dislike religion".

Let them rant, it makes me proud to be Scottish, that we're moving beyond the whole 'civil partnership' stuff and letting a union of two people be just that, without any qualifiers or other crap like that.

I also like how Scotland basically "lol, NO"-ed the Westboro Baptist Church's when they tried to bring their bigotry and hatred to Aberdeen.

Now if you don't mind, I'm going to go listen to a heavy metal rendition of 'Flower of Scotland' until I'm haemorrhaging with patriotism >.>.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

The Catholic Church continues to go against same-sex marriage and thinks its religious influence trumps legislation through arguments that make no sense at all. Sounds about right, nothing new.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Power Cosmic

Now if you don't mind, I'm going to go listen to a heavy metal rendition of 'Flower of Scotland' until I'm haemorrhaging with patriotism >.>.

You can get cream for that, you know. (I know, bad joke but it IS me after all!)

But anyway...I'm a Catholic and most of the time I can at least understand where the rationale for statements of social teaching comes from, even if I don't always agree with it. However, I'm really struggling on this one. The Church isn't being asked to carry out such services or encourage them, so I fail to see why it's a problem for them. If they were being actively forced to go against their own teachings on the subject then perhaps I could understand (although there would still be valid criticism then), but outside of that this is effectively a rant, and one I'm not particularly impressed with on any level.

[Xujhan]

I wonder how many high-ranking church members actually believe this crap, and how many just continue to spout it because they think they'd lose the support of their congregations if they do otherwise.

[Sythan]

Of course they would say that, they know they're going to lose, so just as every anti-gay religious group says "We would be shamed" "God would damn us" "It would destroy our society!" "It would undermine heterosexual marriages!"

It's all B.S., and they know many people support gay marriage and LGBT rights, so naturally they do what every tyrant whose losing their power does, make up lies.

[Snufkin]

I'd be curious to see just how many people who follow the Catholic church this closesly voted SNP. Don't deserve its backing? I didn't see many chapel officials out campaigning. I'm sure the SNP couldn't give a toss.

[JKmadu619]

They are dumbasses who obviously know nothing about religion.

Nothing new for the leaders of the Chatholic church, they and a few devoted followers make all Chatholics seems like assholes. Again, nothing new for the church.

I'm disappointed in the church, and they've officially ruined any chance I have of ever being a Chatholic. Even as a straight person I see this as an outrage, so to be honest I can only imagine how a gay Chatholic would feel reading this.

- Justin

[Guile]

We need to accept people for who they are, and who they want to be! Why do they get supporters when we've hardly gotten any support for the pedophiles? Or what about all those dog-lovers out there? Who are we to say "this is okay, but that's illegal"!?

[MegaMadness]

Simple -The Catholic Church should not have a say in anything.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by MegaMadness

Simple -The Catholic Church should not have a say in anything.

Now that does strike me as throwing the baby out with the bathwater - the Church has as much right to express its opinion (however dubious it may be) as anyone else, just as you and me have the right to criticise it. Disenfranchising an organisation of its freedom of expression simply because you don't agree with it is the start of a very slippery slope.

[Snufkin]

Agreed. And I also found the "They are dumbasses who obviously know nothing about religion." comment a bit eyebrow raising.

As much as this does suck for pro-gay marriage supporters, is this news really a shock?

[JKmadu619]

How does it raise eyebrows?

I'm a Christian, I respect SOME of their values. That being said I'm not particularly fond of Chatholics either...

Anyhow, my point was by denying gays the right to be married, they're destroying the fundamentals of Christianity, and essientially shooting themselves in the foot.They say people should be compelled by Jesus's love to join the church, and that we should "do unto others" and to "treat everyone as you should treat an angel in disguise". And yet they pull a 360 and do shit like this.

So yes, yes indeed. The Chatholic Church obviously does not know a whole lot about their religion, and are doing this move out of some kind of twisted politics.

- Justin

[dancinfool]

When I read this I was shocked. But then I remembered it was the catholic church so stopped being so. :P

Yeah it sucks. And while this may not be the opinion of the whole or even the majority of the congregation, I really do believe some people truly believe this kind of tripe (by which I mean the catholic stance on gay marriage, not catholicism as a whole). Hopefully some day that will change, but if kids are taught their parents opinions and believe them unquestioningly then it takes a longg time

[Snufkin]

I thought it was generally regarded that the church is against gay marriage? Did I miss something?

[Unicorn ♥✿]

Meaningless?

So love if it isn't for the opposite sex is meaningless?

PAH

[MegaMadness]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Now that does strike me as throwing the baby out with the bathwater - the Church has as much right to express its opinion (however dubious it may be) as anyone else, just as you and me have the right to criticise it. Disenfranchising an organisation of its freedom of expression simply because you don't agree with it is the start of a very slippery slope.

They are allowed an opinion. I don't mind that. We are all. What I mean is they shouldn't be allowed to put their ideas into laws etc.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by MegaMadness

They are allowed an opinion. I don't mind that. We are all. What I mean is they shouldn't be allowed to put their ideas into laws etc.

They don't have that power anyway - beyond the confines of the Vatican, the Church has no law-making power or particular rights of audience in legislative bodies at all. Also, with respect, "should not have a say in anything" is much stronger than your clarification so I would bear that in mind.

Also, @ Justin: there is only 1 "h" in Catholic. Please don't use two, it is going to drive me around the bend.

[-A-]

I can see if there against "gay marriage", as marriage is a religous term used by the church to bind two people (guy and girl) in unity before God and a bunch of good stuff like that. But they handled this very poorly. They did it in such a way where the public recourse had to almost be known before they put out the statement, or t least known that it wouldn't help in the long run when in comes to PR.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by -A-

marriage is a religous term

[citation needed]

[Guile]

Originally Posted by MegaMadness

They are allowed an opinion. I don't mind that. We are all. What I mean is they shouldn't be allowed to put their ideas into laws etc.

Why? If the majority of people supported the enacting such laws, it would be un-democratic to do so.

[Snufkin]

If 6 in 10 people support gay marriage, it would be un-democratic to ignore that.

[dancinfool]

Why? If the majority of people supported the enacting such laws, it would be un-democratic to do so

It is a long time since the majority of British (or Scottish) counted themselves Roman Catholic (current census figures note about 16% in Scotland).

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Guile

Why? If the majority of people supported the enacting such laws, it would be un-democratic to do so.

On what grounds? All, or essentially all, modern democracies have safeguards in place to prevent exactly this 'tyrrany of the majority'. I have a feeling you'd see the point more clearly if your state voted on whether all those of german descent should be hanged, for example.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

On what grounds? All, or essentially all, modern democracies have safeguards in place to prevent exactly this 'tyrrany of the majority'. I have a feeling you'd see the point more clearly if your state voted on whether all those of german descent should be hanged, for example.

Yes, but denial of gay marriage is not a violation of UN Law, while the hanging of ethnic Germans is a violation of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 260, Article 2, subsection (a).

"...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
...
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2"

The only United Nations Member to not ratify this law has been the Dominican Republic, but they did sign said treaty.

Although in the resolution it does say,

"(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

But that only applies to a "national, ethnical, racial or religious group", not a sexual orientation, not to mention that homosexuals cannot procreate with their partner naturally, and marriage is not a requirement of procreation.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Guile

Yes, but denial of gay marriage is not a violation of UN Law, while the hanging of ethnic Germans is a violation of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 260, Article 2, subsection (a).

"...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
...
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2"

The only United Nations Member to not ratify this law has been the Dominican Republic, but they did sign said treaty.

Although in the resolution it does say,

"(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

But that only applies to a "national, ethnical, racial or religious group", not a sexual orientation, not to mention that homosexuals cannot procreate with their partner naturally, and marriage is not a requirement of procreation.

I think any response to this falls clearly within "feeding the trolls" territory. But for the sake of my own curiosity: why is the UN relevant? You can't appeal to this and at the same time insist that countries' own systems for protecting minorities are invalid without completely contradicting yourself. Although I will take a moment to appreciate that your idea of "what's good" is based entirely on appealing to authority; it's fitting, all things considered.

In any event, you failed to address the principle point: if the laws say that minorities are to be protected from majority votes to infringe upon their freedoms, as they do, who are you to gainsay the same laws you so often appeal to? Enjoy the bridge.

[-A-]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

[citation needed]

Ill find it later today after I get done with all this bs I have to do.