Yahoo News (via AP): Pope denounces gay marriage lobby to US bishops

[twa]

We also have a civil union called a civil union...which eliminates any religious connotations



let's be civil

[Stophovr6]

Re: Yahoo News (via AP): Pope announces RG3 to Redskins!


Sorry....I'm running a fever and I'm really excited and I'm listening to Kool and the Gang sing Celebration.

[LadySkinsFan]

We don't need to change anything. What needs to change is people thinking that religious organizations have some sort of ownership over a civil, legal construct called marriage.

Think heterosexuals want to have a civil union if they don't happen to have a religious joining ceremony? Ask them if they don't have the same legal operations of law without a religious joining ceremony.

Again, religious organizations do not have ownership of the word "marriage" because that is what they are claiming.

[Thiebear]

I figure if you're a member of their club you should probably follow the rules, it is voluntary after all.
Saying your a Catholic and not following the rules seems rather pointless way to live life.

[adam@section118]

I figure if you're a member of their club you should probably follow the rules, it is voluntary after all.
Saying your a Catholic and not following the rules seems rather pointless way to live life.

Lord forbid you do not agree with everything in a organization, you should just walk away because it is voluntary after all

Guess you shouldn't be a Redskins fan if you do not agree with every decision ever made. Guess you shouldn't stay at University where you do not agree with every stance TPTB take at a University. Guess you should not work for a company where you agree with every move the company makes.

I mean, all of those things are voluntary after all. Or you could use good judgement and a little common sense and realize you are not always going to agree with everything everyone does, be it religious or not.

[Thiebear]

Those seem like some very fundamental rules...
The Pope of all people is reinforcing VERY Catholic like rules. Its not like a Redskins fanboard or College.
It's an agreement on how to live your life and believe ...

but again i'm an outsider lookin in so i could be wrong and it is just a college or skinsfan board.

[adam@section118]

Right. People can disagree with the Pope but still agree with Catholic principals, among other thing.

[Jumbo]

adam makes good points. I didn't mean to abandon this thread, but the RG3 pandemonium has me ES time very occupied.

My personal main sub-topic of interest here is what I noted earlier about how some sexual behvaiors have "evolved"-----from essentially being regarded as repugant and "seriously" (we used to call them venial and mortal sins in catechism if I remember right) sinful practices as homosexuality is commonly framed today by many followers of Catholicism and Christianity in general-----to much more acceptable behaviors now, at least in actual activity.

And the Pope indicates a bit of a return to some of that more "old school" rigidity is required for adherence to God's will. So I wonder how this "doctrine" will affect the actual level of acceptance or practice of sexual behaviors vis a vis heterosexual oral and anal sex, maturbation, sex for 'fun" (in/out of wedlock), premarital sex etc.

The obvious conundrum cognitively as I see it is that many heteros who consider themselves "God-fearing" or just "true believers" are not about to give up oral sex and any of the other items on the list (or not mentioned), even if their clergy are saying they are quite sinful (like premarital sex) by official Christian doctrine/dogma. And then there follows the obvious connections to declaring homosexual behaviors as the "big one we're going to decide to count."

I've had this discussion many times over four decades with all kinds of folks and it's always been fun to watch them while they work on it.

Are any of ya feelin' me?

[Destino]

Those seem like some very fundamental rules...
The Pope of all people is reinforcing VERY Catholic like rules. Its not like a Redskins fanboard or College.
It's an agreement on how to live your life and believe ...

but again i'm an outsider lookin in so i could be wrong and it is just a college or skinsfan board.

That's easy enough as I don't plan on ever marrying a man. If you're going to challenge a Catholics ability at following fundamental rules talk about greed, pride, lust, and honesty. Remember that no one is capable of following all "the rules" in this particular "club".

If you want to question a Catholics ability to follow the rules go into the concept of chastity and temperance within marriage.

[adam@section118]

Wait, the Redskins made a trade for a big name player?!?!?!

I agree with just about everything you said, Jumbo. I forget who said it earlier, but I really think we need an update from Vatican II.

---------- Post added March-10th-2012 at 02:54 PM ----------

That's easy enough as I don't plan on ever marrying a man. If you're going to challenge a Catholics ability at following fundamental rules talk about greed, pride, lust, and honesty. Remember that no one is capable of following all "the rules" in this particular "club".

Well said.

Though if you ask me the biggest turn off (and I am someone who left the Church for many years, long story I wont bother boring anyone with) it is the fact they kept so much in house and just wanted to sweep stuff under the rug. That really made me mad, enough to where I wanted to explore if I believed in organized religion.

[Larry]

I didn't mean to abandon this thread, but the RG3 pandemonium has me ES time very occupied.

"Tyrone, you know how much I love watching you work, but I've got my country's 500th anniversary to plan, my wedding to arrange, my wife to murder and Guilder to frame for it; I'm swamped."

My personal main sub-topic of interest here is what I noted earlier about how some sexual behvaiors have "evolved"-----from essentially being regarded as repugant and "seriously" (we used to call them venial and mortal sins in catechism if I remember right) sinful practices as homosexuality is commonly framed today by many followers of Catholicism and Christianity in general-----to much more acceptable behaviors now, at least in actual activity.

And the Pope indicates a bit of a return to some of that more "old school" rigidity is required for adherence to God's will. So I wonder how this "doctrine" will affect the actual level of acceptance or practice of sexual behaviors vis a vis heterosexual oral and anal sex, maturbation, sex for 'fun" (in/out of wedlock), premarital sex etc.

The obvious conundrum cognitively as I see it is that many heteros who consider themselves "God-fearing" or just "true believers" are not about to give up oral sex and any of the other items on the list (or not mentioned), even if their clergy are saying they are quite sinful (like premarital sex) by official Christian doctrine/dogma. And then there follows the obvious connections to declaring homosexual behaviors as the "big one we're going to decide to count."

I was intending to post, myself, about how it seems like, when the subject is, say, premarital sex, then the argument is "well, you don't have to agree with every little thing, to be Catholic". But that when a religion wants to legislate their religion, then suddenly (whatever the topic is) becomes fundamental, the very bedrock, the most sacredly held tenant of their belief.

But then I read your post. Git Princess Bride sidetracked. And saw that you had written pretty much what I was mentally composing, anyway.

[Larry]

No they don't. The Constitution protects their beliefs.

There's a difference between what the church calls marriage and what the state calls marriage. For the state, it's paperwork and legality. For the church, it's not. You can get married in a church and not be legally married if you don't have a marriage certificate submitted to a state authority.

Agreed.

So, the government changes it from "marriage" to "social union."

Disagree.

Sorry, but "well, if we can't keep the gays away from it, then we'll just take (the word) away from everybody" isn't fair.

(And neither is "If you want a 'civil union', then the government can do it, but if you want to get 'married', then you have to do both.")

----------

I would have gone for that idea, if it had happened 20 years ago, and if the reason for doing it was because the church objected to the word "marriage" being handed out by government bureaucrats.

If, for example, people had argued that having two teenaged drunks getting "hitched" at 4 in the morning by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas, shouldn't be called a "marriage".

I fully agree that marriage was something that was only done by churches, for a very long time in human history. IMO, if the churches had "protected their trademark" for the last 100 years, then I'd be on their side about it, now.

But they didn't.

If we take away the word "marriage" now, then we're doing it to keep The Gays from getting their hands (and other body parts) on it. (Even if we take it away from everybody.)

[Destino]

From a strategy standpoint it doesn't matter what they call it. Language doesn't follow the title on a government form. "Green cards" aren't green and they don't say green cards on them. If civil unions are the same in everything but the name on the form they'll be referred to as marriage.

It's important to note that marriage is a battle not a war. It's not unheard of for people to lose sight of that so some think it's all about this one issue. The war is making homosexuality normal and mundane. That's why marriage, inclusion of homosexuality in schools, and homosexuality on "family programming" are all opposed. Win the battle "enough" by getting equal benefits and simply DECLARE total victory. Say something like "they can call it whatever they want but I'll be too busy buying wedding gifts to care!"

I do understand the emotional energy that exists however surrounding the different wording however.

[Larry]

Oh, I agree that gay marriage is simply a step, not a destination.

I will observe that discrimination against blacks still hasn't ended, yet. (I'll even admit that I have the disease. I assume I always will. I'm not proud of it. I try not to let it make decisions for me. But it's there.)

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Nice to see no focus on things like poverty, hunger, war and torture. Because none of those are issues in the world now. Nope, just the icky and increasingly powerful gay people.