Comments on: Archbishops Vincent Nichols and Peter Smith’s letter on gay marriage

By: dairy

dairy — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:48:17 +0000

good point, mr man, yours is a workable solution, but unfortunately the catch is that the Churches want it their way or not at all – no room for compromise in any shape or form…
a very Christian attitude? I think not….
my problem with this is that it further underlines the sense (or rather, nonsense) that homosexuality and homosexual relationships of whatever kind or duration are “wrong” or not as valid as heterosexual ones. This takes society’s attitudes back 30 years – now that’s really wrong!
what happened to “love thy neighbour” and Christian compassion? gone out of the stained glass window in a vitriolic puff of smoke, by the looks of things….

By: mr man

mr man — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:08:09 +0000

This issue honestly pisses me off.
.
Not only is Marriage a near defunct institution.
.
I am personally of the opinion that if the Catholic church – or any other religion want to not support Gay marriage then they have every right to do so.
.
After all the Catholic marriage ceremony was invented by the Catholic Church.
.
So if they want to say no to gay marriage then that is their choice – and it is YOUR choice whether or not you chose to follow that religion
.
In truth the gov. was very much ahead of it’s time when it created the Civil Partnerships
and no one is going to correct someone if they say – “this is Gary, my Husband”
.
“erm sorry you surely mean civil partner”
.
But NO lets bleat about a name – semantics.
.
BAh
.
Perhaps a workable solution that would make everybody happy is if we made marriage AND civil partnerships open to everyone gay or straight.
.
You get the same rights in each (as you do now) only if you opt to get married….
.
There is NO OPTION for divorce. EVER. Under any circumstances.
.
I wonder how many people would want to get married then?

By: dairy

dairy — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:23:24 +0000

I fail to understand why the Catholic Church (and certain Anglicans) are so frightened of this move.
The concept of marriage set out above is a religious one – the fact is that marriage, in its present state, can be religious or secular, both being legal versions of it.
Marriage to most people is a commitment to the person that you love and the question of children is a matter of choice or fertility – what about those couples who either are unable to have children or simply do not wish to have them? Are their marriages invalid?
The churches already refuse, in many cases, to marry men and women if either of the partners has been divorced – that is their choice (although petty and unlightened, IMO) – but it means they also have the choice NOT to marry gay couples if they so wish – what is the problem there?
Why should they have the choice, but not allow gay couples who wish to affirm their serious commitment to each other to have the same?
And to read out a letter in church to all Catholics, instructing them to oppose it is dreadful and in a certain light could be seen as incitement to hatred – it is certainly very divisive. A touch of the NIMBYs, no less….
I agree with you, Abitoftap – the growing feeling is that it should go through just for the annoyance value alone….

By: abitoftap

abitoftap — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:38:58 +0000

Honestly, the arguments these people use are hardly above 11 year old level.
I have no religion, and don’t believe that marriage should be associated with any faith. It should be a civil arrangement and if people want a religious blessing, fine.
Until all this I couldn’t see why a civil partnership was any way different (looks like a duck, quacks like a duck….) to marriage and couldn’t see why people were fussing.
But now, after all the offensive and ignorant arguments, I want marriage to annoy these people as much as anything else.