Evidence for God from Science

Who's in charge of the definition of marriage?

And there is the question. Obviously I would say, nature and nature's God. There are many defenses of natural marriage that aren't religious, and they've been covered before on this forum.

I doubt it. There are churches calling themselves Christian which marry religious homosexuals in my jurisdiction, and all is well. I doubt that mosques, synagogues and Roman Catholic churches in Glasgow will ever marry homosexuals. These groups will brave any awkward situation that may place them in the eyes of society at large.

This absolutely is a problem, and the ACLU and other groups are launching legal attacks against clergy who refuse to perform such unions where they are legally recognized. And action against churches who refuse to allow their facilities to be used for such. Just google, "church sued for not performing gay marriage."

The problem with the gay movement is that they are not content to be tolerated. They demand forced acceptance. If you disagree, you are wrong. Not just of a different opinion. It's a lot scarier than many want to realize.

Proinsias wrote:

Marriage is a right. It all depends on how marriage is being defined. I would content that marriage, by it's nature and definition, is a civil or religious union between a man and woman.
Gay people certainly have that right.

If we change the definition of it then its nature could become a civil or religious union between two adults. Here we have civil partnerships for homosexual couples and marriage for heterosexual couples, from a legal point of view they are identical. From living in a society where civil partnerships function in the same manner as marriage it seems sensible to me to allow for people of either sex to have either one - chocolate or vanilla as Jac would say.

Who's in charge of the definition of marriage?

I agree with you and jlay that marriage is a right.

Question: what are rights, and where do they come from?

This may be an interesting discussion between Americans and Europeans.

jlay wrote:the ACLU and other groups are launching legal attacks against clergy who refuse to perform such unions where they are legally recognized. And action against churches who refuse to allow their facilities to be used for such. Just google, "church sued for not performing gay marriage."

The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is strictly an American problem (!) and it has no influence beyond U.S. borders, thank God! I'd like to see the ACLU sue a mosque for not marrying a gay couple...do you think this could happen? Impossible!

FL

jlay wrote:This absolutely is a problem, and the ACLU and other groups are launching legal attacks against clergy who refuse to perform such unions where they are legally recognized. And action against churches who refuse to allow their facilities to be used for such. Just google, "church sued for not performing gay marriage."

Oh lordy lordy, welcome to the world of forced acceptance and the thought police. We've become almost numb to this illiberal agenda over here it’s been going on so bloody long. What you need is a strong church who will stand up to the 'authorities' on this. We don’t have such a church anymore. I hope you do.

The problem with the gay movement is that they are not content to be tolerated. They demand forced acceptance. If you disagree, you are wrong. Not just of a different opinion. It's a lot scarier than many want to realize.

Exactly!! The thought police. For ’liberal’ read ‘dictatorial.’

Exactly!! The thought police. For ’liberal’ read ‘dictatorial.’

I wonder if the future has our churches doing all sorts of unlawful biblical acts, just because they are legal in the eyes of the Govt.

Danny, is the Roman Catholic Church not a fairly strong church which stands up to the authorities on this? They're still pre-feminism to a large degree in my experience never mind open to fluid ideas of gender and sexuality.

Proinsias wrote:Danny, is the Roman Catholic Church not a fairly strong church which stands up to the authorities on this? They're still pre-feminism to a large degree in my experience never mind open to fluid ideas of gender and sexuality.

Pre-feminism? How so?

Female priests.

Proinsias wrote:Female priests.

Here's a little rant from me.

I hear so many exact the same complaints - why women can't be priests, but none about why men can't be nuns. I think the problem lies in the fact that discrimination-seeking individuals see the priest as more valuable than a nun, just as they generally see the man's role as more prestigious than the woman's role. They think it's so easy to be a man in a traditionalistic society with gender roles. (I know I may be drifting off topic, but this thread has to do with society anyway) Is it easy to work hard to provide for your family, secure a living standard for your wife and children, look after them, think for several people at once instead of solely yourself, because they depend on you? What's so wrong about women being honoured for the special role they play in our society? Now, I know that the traditional society often discriminated women, didn't recognize their right to vote, kept them locked at home etc., but that's not the way it should have been. Humans are fallen beings, we've done errors bigger than that. I think we're all aware that making conclusions based on such errors would be a huge straw man. Finally, most of the gentlemen's codes of conduct had their roots in Christian morals.

Now Proinsias, since you've been mentioning "fluid ideas of gender and sexuality", tell me, do you really think that we're better off today than we were before, let's say, 50 years? What have those "fluid ideas" brought us, aside from greediness for money which blinds people from seeing their situation at home, impatience in interpersonal relationships, promiscuity, so many children growing up without a safe shelter called family, no wonder! When people start making up excuses for not making love, then you know that something has gone wrong, very wrong. I won't even start with the topic of "gay rights" - everything's already been said, besides, I think you can read between the lines to figure out my opinion about it. If one's even allowed to have an opinion about it at all.

I'm not accusing you for everything written above, but I think you should try seeing the situation from a different perspective, not just the one served to us.

I wish you all the best.
Reactionary

Man= Monk

Woman= Nun

Isn't a monk pretty much male nun?

Murray wrote:Man= Monk

Woman= Nun

Isn't a monk pretty much male nun?

That's what I thought. There's still a gap for a female priest then.

Reactionary:

Now Proinsias, since you've been mentioning "fluid ideas of gender and sexuality", tell me, do you really think that we're better off today than we were before, let's say, 50 years?

I rather like where I am now, I can't really compare my current life to an imaginary one 20 years before I was born, at least in terms of life being generally better. I do think that in the last 50yrs governments have started taking seriously gender and sexuality issues. It's not been an issue for me personally but I do feel that people who complicate the male/female heterosexual model are better off today than they would have been 50yrs ago.

I think the problem lies in the fact that discrimination-seeking individuals see the priest as more valuable than a nun, just as they generally see the man's role as more prestigious than the woman's role.

It's not so much that the man's role is seen as more prestigious as the woman's and more that the man's role is something which no woman could ever be capable of. Anybody can devote their lives, but only men will be able to deal with stuff like birth, death and marriage.
What sort of situation would require a nun if there was a priest and a monk present?

Proinsias wrote:That's what I thought. There's still a gap for a female [Roman Catholic] priest then.

No. There is no gap. The Roman Catholic Church sees itself as the ''New Israel'' and has reproduced the priesthood of the Old Alliance. Priests in ancient Judaism were only men, and only they could perform sacred rites. If you have access to Catechism of the Catholic Church you may want to look up points 433, 436, 1150 on priests in the Old Alliance (OT Judaism) and ponder points 857 & 877 about priesthood under the New Alliance, as understood by The RCC. In essence, women priests are not possible.

In modern Judaism, only Reform Judaism allows female Rabbis. You - Proinsias - have a female chief Rabbi at Glasgow New Synagogue.

FL

neo-x wrote:

Exactly!! The thought police. For ’liberal’ read ‘dictatorial.’

I wonder if the future has our churches doing all sorts of unlawful biblical acts, just because they are legal in the eyes of the Govt.

Unbiblical acts? We're there already, bro.

Proinsias wrote:Danny, is the Roman Catholic Church not a fairly strong church which stands up to the authorities on this? They're still pre-feminism to a large degree in my experience never mind open to fluid ideas of gender and sexuality.

Don't really know, Pro. I'm more concerned with the institutional Church's silence on such matters.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Proinsias wrote:That's what I thought. There's still a gap for a female [Roman Catholic] priest then.

No. There is no gap. The Roman Catholic Church sees itself as the ''New Israel'' and has reproduced the priesthood of the Old Alliance. Priests in ancient Judaism were only men, and only they could perform sacred rites. If you have access to Catechism of the Catholic Church you may want to look up points 433, 436, 1150 on priests in the Old Alliance (OT Judaism) and ponder points 857 & 877 about priesthood under the New Alliance, as understood by The RCC. In essence, women priests are not possible.

In modern Judaism, only Reform Judaism allows female Rabbis. You - Proinsias - have a female chief Rabbi at Glasgow New Synagogue.

FL

I may be mistaken but I was under the impression the catechism was basically the teachings of the RCC and was open to modification, i.e. women priest are not currently possible under the existing catechism.