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.

If I were gay, there is no way I'd set foot in a catholic church to marry, anyway, but that is besides the point.

So why do we think the catholic church is trying to put a stop to it altogether. Surely it would be possible to frame the new law in such a way that religious providers of marrying services (I know there is a word I mean) can be granted an exemption so they can refuse to marry certain couples in their churches if they have a moral objection to it. Why wouldn't they be lobbying for that solution instead, do we reckon?

I'm a bit confused about this whole marriage thing. I admit that my knowledge of the history of marriage is a bit hazy, and it is mainly derived from Wikipedia and "The Woman in White", but I thought marriage wasn't really common for ordinary people in the UK until the reformation (basically you were married to somebody if you both agreed to be married and you slept with each other) and the details of marriage were pretty hazy until the marriage act of 1753 which formalised marriage requirements.

I can understand that the catholic church might want to defend their concept of a catholic marriage, just as I would expect them to defend any of their beliefs. However, when they talk about the civil institution of marriage (something that creates kinship between 2 people who enjoy sexual intimacy according to wikipedia), I'm not really sure that they know what they are talking about.

The Catholic church got in first with its definition of marriage with the Council of Trent, 1545-1549.

I agree it has acknowledged a much looser idea of what constitutes legal marriage up to now -- I think in contradiction of quite a few of its own pronouncements.

I think the basic thought of the RC church here is that laws can educate and change public opinion in and of themselves and that the premise of gay marriage is so repugnant to the Church that the current legal definition, even though it lacks many of the elements that are supposed to be present in a Catholic marriage, needs upholding because as it stands, it excludes gay people.

My solution would be:

1. The only union recognised by the state would be a civil partnership.
2. If you want to describe yourself as married you have to have another ceremony.
3. This ceremony could take place in your local catholic church, a hindu temple, St Paul's cathedral, your local Burger King, as officiated by Richard Dawkins or a private ceremony in your front room, like they did in the olden days (maybe with soft lighting and some paint on chocolate).

Or alternatively we could just call everybody married, if their significant other were legally recognised by the state. The main advantage of this would be that 'civil partner' and 'civil partnership' are a bit of a mouthful compared to marriage, husband, and wife, and legally they mean exactly the same thing.

Ill take chocolate paint please lol

PBB I agree that civil and religious marriage should be totally separate, I don't really care what each of them are called. I agree that no religion should have anything to do with the legislature and education should be secular.

As I understand it the church disagrees because it feels that the government is changing the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. I can't imagine that they would be forced to marry gay couples in church- there would be plenty of religions in trouble with that one wouldn't there? Some sort of exemption would be written into the law.

And re the ten commandments, was just making the point that my faith is based on the New Testament. Love God and neighbour as yourself pretty much covers the lot.

The churches who denied gay marriage would only be subject to legal challenge if there was a good case. They are scared because they know there is a good case - it is discrimination. So, instead of working out a proper solution, they come up with, hey lets try to make everyone else party to this discrimination, even the Quakers who want to marry gay couples. Cover up their discrimination by making everyone else continue with it.

If it really didn't matter, if it really wasn't discrimination, the churches wouldn't be kicking up like this. Its fear because deep down they know they are wrong.

jjkm, I agree with you: if gay people didn't have civil partnerships, I'd be signing every petition going so that they could have same rights as marriage, but now, frankly, I am pissed off that reasonable people like me AND religious people have to our rights disregarded to satisfy a small minority.

Wamster - how on earth are your rights being disregarded? Your inalienable right Not To Be Irritated By People Making A Fuss About Things They Think Matter But I don't?

jjkm - there are certain types of discrimination which are illegal - likening these things to picking apples does you no credit. There are legal protections against discrimination on the grounds of race, gender and now sexuality. Religious discrimination is at a slightly lower level because its not an intrinsic (though I know people feel as though it is) and is complicated by the fact that religous organisations have managed to retain the rights to discriminate - faith schools can discriminate on admissions and the hiring of staff in a way that no secular organisations can.

They are being disregarded because there is no f*ing need for this talk of gay marriage at all when gay people ALREADY have civil partnerships. Precious time is being wasted by the government on this issue when they could be doing better bloody things.

I have signed the anti-gay marriage petition and hope others will feel the same as I do. Not out of homophobia, or religion, but because of sheer anger at the waste of time this is.

I can see it now:
Parliamentary time on gay marriage: 700 hours
Jobs and the economy: 7 hours

Iraq war and fox hunting all over again...

What rights do you think you have in relation to how parliament spends its time?

Northey Is that a serious question?! Really?! . As a taxpaying citizen of the UK, I've every bloody right to question how the parliament spends its time.

In any case, who are you to hint that I should be meek in the face of authority-you don't even obey the rules of Your Pope!

Of course it's a serious question!

Now. If you can question decisions made by Parliament, why can I not question decisions made by the church hierarchy?

And I have given you a serious answer.
I can do without criticism and advice from you to be meek in the face of authority. You clearly do not obey the authority of your pope if you agree with gay marriage.

Because I have no choice. I HAVE to live in the UK. You have a choice to be a Catholic. You can choose whether or not to accept catholicism. Yet you kind of do but don't at the same time because you disregard god's representative's on earths thoughts about gay marriage.

Catholicism is a choice. If you disagree with its views, you can leave it.

Bollocks. You can emigrate. Easy peasy. Free movement in the EU, even.

I'm not sure you're all that qualified to pronounce on how easy it is or not to choose to leave one's faith.