Are Catholics being forced out of public life?

Mikeuk · 02-02-2007, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_steam

Quote:

nor could I attend a gay civil partnership ceremony ( gay marriage by another name)

is it?

Surely one is a union before God performed by a minister of the church and the other is 'just' a non religeous (secular) joining?

So a 'civil partnership' - for any sex pairing - is not a marriage in the religeous sense of the word. So why can't you attend, accept it is a secular occasion (think of 'birthday party') and just wish the pair well?

Or is it that you accept civil partnerships between straights, but not between gays? If so, what is your logic? The gays are going to live together anyway, so doing it before or after a secular blessing makes no odds at all in the face of God, surely? You'd make sense if you stated you would not attend ANY civil partnership - but you didn't.

The Church should, of course, maintain it's beliefs which are based on what it interprets through scripture as the word of God. But to suggest that a civil partnership is distasteful to the same extent as a church wedding of gays, or that somehow such a joining would somehow be 'blessed' by your presence is, I think, a little bizarre.

Honestly, the best way to deal with homosexuality is to put it on a par with left-handedness. They're different, they're born that way, they manage their lives themselves and don't need interference, special laws or special protection either way.

I think these events totally go against the grain for most people whether religious or not. Homosexual acts are of course specifically condemned by almost all world religions.

A gay friend recently told me that he and his partner were thinking of having a civil partnership event, I suppose for financial reasons. I daresay we would attend just as - in the way you suggest - we attend their birthday parties, but that doesn't mean we really approve.

Not to mention the fact that the partnership ceremonies highlighted in the press are ridiculous glitzy camped-up charades on a par with the very worst sort of vulgar spendthrift wedding - which I personally consider to be utterly revolting anyway.

rjt · 02-02-2007, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

The "gay adoption" scandal represented a full frontal attack on ALL religion - not just Catholicism and Christianity.

In his present weakened state Blair was unable to withstand the onslaught.

I feel sorry for Ruth Kelly. Her Irish Catholic background sets her at odds with the modern Socialist ethos. Like Kate Hoey (who came from a Unionist background via extreme Marxism) she now appears completely out on a limb in Nulabour England.

Ruth Kelly should resign from the govenrment if she had any honour to vote against this legisaltion which is a whipped vote preventing her from exercising her consience. But of course being a new labour toady it is career before principle.

Feldoon · 02-02-2007, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

The "gay adoption" scandal represented a full frontal attack on ALL religion - not just Catholicism and Christianity.

No it didn't.

It really, really didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjt

Of course I could not attend a gay civil partnership beleiveing as I do that homosexuality is sinful.

What happened to hate the sin not the sinner?

rjt · 02-02-2007, 10:05 AM

It is quite easy to love someone even if you dont agree with everything they do, any semi competent parent will tell you that.

arden forester · 02-02-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

It really, really didn't.

Well, it might not be full frontal, but it was a punchy sideswipe.

They can't abide the ethos of traditional Christianity. How many times have you heard them say, "it's about time the Church came into the real world/21st century", etc.

This is a case of belief in a "Kingdom not of this World" and belief in the "World's As-It-Is-Today Ethos" coming to a crossroads and finding not a lot in common.

rjt · 02-02-2007, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arden forester

Quote:

It really, really didn't.

Well, it might not be full frontal, but it was a punchy sideswipe.

They can't abide the ethos of traditional Christianity. How many times have you heard them say, "it's about time the Church came into the real world/21st century", etc.

This is a case of belief in a "Kingdom not of this World" and belief in the "World's As-It-Is-Today Ethos" coming to a crossroads and finding not a lot in common.

If I may say so that is really well put, christians are supposed to follow Christ and stay true to his teachings not follow the latest whims of society.

Feldoon · 02-02-2007, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arden forester

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feldoon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

The "gay adoption" scandal represented a full frontal attack on ALL religion - not just Catholicism and Christianity.

No it didn't.

It really, really didn't.

Well, it might not be full frontal, but it was a punchy sideswipe.

Not on all religion.

rjt · 02-02-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arden forester

Quote:

It really, really didn't.

Well, it might not be full frontal, but it was a punchy sideswipe.

They can't abide the ethos of traditional Christianity. How many times have you heard them say, "it's about time the Church came into the real world/21st century", etc.

This is a case of belief in a "Kingdom not of this World" and belief in the "World's As-It-Is-Today Ethos" coming to a crossroads and finding not a lot in common.

Of course if it was Muslims protesting against the gay adoption laws I think we might have seen a diffrent result, no way of knowing for sure but my gut instinct tells me that would be the case.

arden forester · 02-02-2007, 11:06 AM

feldoon

Quote:

not ALL religion

You mean not on your personal view of religion and those who have set up separate denominations to include modern beliefs and notions. Granted. I accept that. There are "inclusive" churches in the USA. But this onslaught (and I am thinking only of the UK here) is directed at the mainstream churches, most of judaism, islam, etc, etc.

The European Union wants a secular structure with religious freedoms, as France has it. However, that only allows churches, etc to promote worship only. When it comes to social work, whether it be adoption, teaching, medical services, etc, then they want to control. The New Labour "We Don't Do God" tendency is saying that the Churches cannot have a optout on legislation for matters of conscience.

It is going to get worse. For instance, what if the Government said the Church could not refuse to ordain a practising homosexual or a woman or a divorced person. Should the Church just cave in?

Mikeuk · 02-02-2007, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feldoon

Quote:

Originally Posted by arden forester

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feldoon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

The "gay adoption" scandal represented a full frontal attack on ALL religion - not just Catholicism and Christianity.

No it didn't.

It really, really didn't.

Well, it might not be full frontal, but it was a punchy sideswipe.

Not on all religion.

I suppose it might be looked upon with favour by members of some kind of hippie New Age religion, but I certainly can't think of any other.

The Dalai Lama recently criticised homosexuality, and we know what the Muslims think.

Most of my Jewish friends aren't too tolerant of it either.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-02-2007, 10:05 AM	#24 (permalink)
rjt Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Aldershot Posts: 5,767 Party: Other	It is quite easy to love someone even if you dont agree with everything they do, any semi competent parent will tell you that.