Catholics, what are your thoughts on this mornings Bishops letter?

[ImproperlyAcquainted]

The one from Vincent Nicholls and Peter Smith regarding marriage, specifically homosexual marriage.

I want to respond but after rambling on for 3 pages I'n not really sure of my point anymore.

I have gay friends so am not against CP but religions can't be expected to if its against their beliefs.

Sounds fair bugsy

Right on, sister (bugs) :)

Mathanxiety, well I'd say that is pretty conclusive: catholicism regards marriage as between a man and a woman.

Religion and public service are different its not like the bus service

Maybe I should start a thread:

"If you are married, or think you might want to be married at some point, would you object to the legal process of being united being called a Civil Partnership, rather than Marriage?"

I think what Lenin is referring to is situations where adherents of a religion receive public money in exchange for performing a public service (eg running a school). They can't have that money if they promote messages contrary to the viewpoint of the country, eg that gay people are massive sinners with an evil way of life.

Not as long if you are religious you can call it a marriage lol make marriage strictly religious and partnership strictly not

Sure they can as long as those sending it are aware its a donation after all

Wamster please don't confuse the prescriptions within the catechism with what actual Catholics actually believe and practise.

I've said here that I don't care if my register office heterosexual marriage is renamed civil partnership tomorrow. I say this because it's not about 'one law for the gay people, another for me', I genuinely believe that civil partnerships and non-religious marriage amount to the same thing in everyday life. So my view about arguing for gay marriage as being a waste of time is genuine and not based upon prejudice.

Civil partnerships for every non-religious marriage seems a reasonable solution to me. But then some people would say this wasn't romantic enough, but, sorry, I think politics is the art of the possible (civil partnerships are an excellent example of this. Of how you can keep the majority of people satisfied) and you can't please everybody all of the time.

Interesting point LeninGrad. Where would the law stand on a Church in the UK refusing to conduct a religious marriage of a gay couple? Where does it stand now out of interest?

sorry you did say Catholicism not Catholics (my screen is cracked)

They shouldn't religion is important and you shouldn't undermine someone's beliefs just because you want to marry in a church I know I don't want to marry in a church because I'm not Christian.

Ah, so the CP law back when it was introduced, prevented religious organisations from being open to accusations of discrimination! That was clever.

Presumably, this is another reason why the Catholic Church is kicking off then, because if gay marriage becomes possible legally, then under discrimination law, it could be seen as discriminating against gay couples by not marrying them. Have I got that right?

Probably a bit slow on the uptake.

The etymology and the sense in which any given church sees the concept are two different things.
A great many more than two different things, and yet more when you include how groups other than churches see the concept. Which just shows that no one church (or even The Christian Church) can lay dibs on the term 'marriage'.

I realise the conversation has moved on a bit so I apologise, but I'd like to make a point about staying catholic when you disagree with teachings. Believe it or not I actually took a faith test, as daft as it sounds, and came out only 20% catholic, which helped me decide to change my faith. I'd compare it to a friendship rather than a nationality. I can choose to stay friends with someone I disagree with, of course I can. But if that person's beliefs are so opposed to mine that I find them offensive, then maybe it's time to move on. Silently disagreeing is just the same as agreeing IYSWIM. My conscience would no longer allow me to be seen as supporting Catholicism. So I left.

Sorry to be off topic, as you were.....

Presumably, this is another reason why the Catholic Church is kicking off then, because if gay marriage becomes possible legally, then under discrimination law, it could be seen as discriminating against gay couples by not marrying them. Have I got that right?

yes, you've said more succinctly what I just tried to say on a different thread. Trying to get off the legal hook by continuing to make it impossible for anyone to marry gay couples if they wish to. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I think you are right, PostBellumBugsy, and somebody did point out on antoher thread that if gay marriage came in the church could be forced to marry gay people.

Civil partnerships aren't perfect, but, to be honest, they probably satisfy most of us: gay people themselves, the religious, and most others.

I think David Cameron is being really foolish in pressing this issue. Because it's not as if the labour government didn't think the whole issue through with the CP act. I actually think it was one of their success stories.

It horrified me that gay people didn't have access to the same legal rights as straight people, but now they seem to have the same rights available so any further talk of 'marriage' is just irritating.