Except the Church is against divorce. :p
Printable View
Except the Church is against divorce. :p
Ah, but they're also in favor of penalizing adulterers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I'd like to see them attempt to reintroduce legislation to that effect. Of course we both know the Church isn't going to attack half of its followers.
You may have unlocked another part of the reason why the church likes to pick on gays there, Loki.
That goes to my point that the issue is inertia. The Church was at one stage passionately against allowing: contraception, adultery, divorce, abortion, gay marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Where they're legal and the issues been settled there's not normally a resurgence of effort to criminalise it. But legalising any was fought against.
AFAIK they disapprove of those having sex too. Sex is not supposed to happen for any other reason than procreation. (Though I think they recently said that condoms might help stop the spreading of HIV and other STD's).Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Can't wait for the Vatican to lobby for a law banning pre-marital sex and any other sex not intended to lead to procreation. :o
You should try to look at this like a catholic to understand why changing marriage is different for them than condemning sin. Marriage for them is a sacrament that the church bestows on true believers.It is holy and it can't be dissolved (the only valid reason for dissolution/annulment is if it was never consumed). If you get married without having the purpose of procreation you have obtained the sacrament on false pretenses as far as the Church is concerned. But once it is consumed the Church is powerless with regards to its continuation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
When you sin, by having sex just for fun, sex with somebody of the same sex or not your spouse you are a sinner and can already be punished with witholding the sacrament of absolution.
The part I don't get is that no one forces the Catholic Church to recognize or perform any marriage it doesn't want to recognize or perform.
They don't get it either. I've heard this argument from many religious people; that they don't want to be forced to marry gay people. Last I checked, no one makes them marry non-church members to begin with. I certainly didn't marry in a church. The Catholic church (or any other institution) aren't the sole authority for marriage in America. It's just hypocrisy. Nothing new with humanity.
Well, they feel they invented the institution somehow. But as with many other things they simply copied something that was already around in Roman society. I personally still see marriage as a contract, not as some publication of my innermost feelings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgrrl
That's how the government sees it as well; which is why I don't see why everyone should follow some church's doctrine on how they do marriage. They can have their sacrament; the rest of us are entering in our own contracts with our own definition of what a marriage should or should not be.
I don't see the Catholic Church opposing recognition of non-Catholic marriages either. So they don't seem all that concerned that most marriages in this country do not meet Catholic criteria...
Yes, I have yet to see anyone (including my Fundie cousins) denounce my very agnostic marriage. I did happen to produce a child; but the likelihood of that child becoming one of their flock is extremely low.
I like the idea of an agnostic marriage. "We may or may not be married, but have no way of knowing" ?
Haha, I guess I should say "non-religious" based marriage. I'm not the most eloquent of writers ;)
I think the problem in your particular system is that you recognize marriages performed by religious bodies. In either Holland or Turkey you could get married in a house of worship all that you want, the state will not give it any consequence. Marriage there means going to either a town hall (NL) or a marriage office (TR). I understand in the US any licensed priest/minister/imam could marry you and have that marriage recognized by the state. It's not that strange that religious groups feel they have a stake in the definition of marriage in general. I mean, in theory in the US a muslim could be married by an orthodox rabbi couldn't he?Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgrrl
In theory, yes.
The actual ceremony in a religious venue is for show. The priest then has to apply for a marriage certificate from the county clerk, just like any other officiant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
That's a very marginal difference. In the NL or TR there never is an intermediary between the civil servant who officiates and the person who issues the proof of marriage. Religious organisations don't have a small role in the process, they have NO role at all in the process. And they have no role because the state in both cases wanted to leave no doubt about its predominance in the domain. That is also the reason why religious marriages have no more meaning than a little girl officiating in the marriage between her dolls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And then of course, how many people are aware that the blessing is just a piece of show jewelry on a secular process? Perceptions are facts in day to day life.
The perception over here for some religious folk is the opposite- that government should get out of marriage and leave it to the religious institutions.
Yeah, until they realize "the government", not a religion or church, is the legal venue for property transfers. Including spousal benefits for military service, SS, pensions, and minor children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgrrl
I recall reading that the Roman Catholic Church wanted priests and clergy to be celibate, not marry or have children (heirs)....because that would mess up the property holdings of the Vatican.
Religious groups know that there must be a boundary between good and evil. Without that boundary, good or bad would be just relative and subject to everyone's convenience and desire. Here are some links to think about good and evil...
On the Pedophilia Issue: What the APA Should Have Known
http://www.narth.com/docs/whatapa.html
Should American Legalize Pedophilia?
http://voices.yahoo.com/should-ameri...ia-370890.html
Germany and EU to Legalize Pedophilia and with it, Child Pornography as well!
http://www.eutimes.net/2009/06/germa...raphy-as-well/
Pedophilia a ‘sexual orientation’ experts tell Parliament
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ped...ell-parliament
Should Incest Be Legal?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...607322,00.html
Professor Accused of Incest With Daughter
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/switzer...9#.T8VtM1JUGSo
You actually cited Narth? :bored: