Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Diverse Sanctuary
331 Followers
Norwood Pearson
123 Followers
BrainDeranged
292 Followers
Mendokusai Daiyo
17822 Followers
crapolatimeJan 23, 2011
The church can counsel those two gay guys to see if they will indeed renounce all others and stay married for many years, without getting into a tiff over that hot new guy next door.
Well don't gay people have a 'slightly' higher chance of staying married than straight people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Jan 23, 2011
Or those two gay guys can tell the church to go f**k themselves and get married anyway by a non-church person.
jmprocaJan 23, 2011
I'm Catholic and I think you're right on the ball. I don't agree with telling the Church to "f**k themselves," but ya, if two gay people want to get married then they will of course have to look towards options not concerning the Catholic Church, and they have every right to do so.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Jan 24, 2011
Not sure why you were dugg down. You are right.
jmprocaJan 24, 2011
That's the internet for you...
average650Jan 23, 2011
Seems reasonable to me.
"He said the right to a church wedding requires that the bride and groom intend to celebrate and live the marriage truthfully and authentically."
If the pastor had a good reason to believe that they would not do that, (say he knew that one of them was currently seeing someone else) then it's completely reasonable and right to not marry them.
Certainly a pastor could take this too far, but that would be a misuse of what the Pope has said here.
norman619Jan 23, 2011
Marriage isn't the sole domain of Catholics and Christians in general. Marriage is part of many cultures and religions. So no it's not all that reasonable.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2011
So, you're saying that a pastor (or equivalent) MUST marry a couple, whether he wants to or not?
Closed AccountJan 23, 2011
No, where did you get that from? He just said marriage is not solely a religious institution.
Obviously a public servant (a judge) works on behalf of the state, and must follow state guidelines for marriage. If gay marriage is legal in that state, the judge must marry same-sex couples. He has no more right to refuse to based on "moral" grounds than he does to refuse to marry an interracial couple on "moral" grounds.
sloppyjoes7Jan 24, 2011
"No, where did you get that from? "
The original post you were replying to. I was assuming you were replying to him, but maybe you were just trying to top-post.
cosinezeroJan 24, 2011
No, he's saying that there is a right to have a marriage. Who performs the ceremony is not at issue, here - and is frankly the least of all concerns at stake. Your notion that pastors - or anyone, for that matter - would be forced to perform services they were morally opposed to... is not on the table, except by those who bring it up for the noble cause of fearmongering.
jmprocaJan 23, 2011
The pope was speaking only about Catholic marriages. Of course there is marriage in other religions, as well as civic marriages, in that domain it's true that everybody should have the right.
This article was addressing only the Catholic Church and it's view and traditions concerning marriage, so I can see how what the Pope said makes sense.
phillaholicJan 23, 2011
So really by that logic, they shouldn't be bitching about Gay Marriage. As long as they don't have to perform them, which they wouldn't.
jmprocaJan 23, 2011
Just because the Church doesn't condone gay marriage within the organization doesn't change the fact that they do have an opinion on it. They are free to express whatever opinion they have, just as people who disagree with the Church have that same right.
phillaholicJan 27, 2011
Why make the distinction? If you they believe Marriage isn't a right and also believe gay marriage isn't the same, why don't they extend the former to everyone like they do Gay Marriage?
brandonsand1Jan 23, 2011
I wholeheartedly agree with the Pope. As per the US' situation, I think the govt. should not issue a single marriage license, and instead civil unions to all couples. If people then want the religious nod, they can get married on their own, with it having no affect on their legal rights. Other than outright bigots, who would be against that?
brandonsand1Jan 23, 2011
Oh also, what follows is that no religious figure will be legally forced to marry any couple, as they are practicing their religious freedom, and have no affect on rights.
Closed AccountJan 23, 2011
I agree regarding the civil union idea. People have some serious hang-ups regarding the word "married". In reality, it refers both to a legal arrangement and a social arrangement.
Making civil unions universal, and allowing any consenting adults to enter into them, would separate the legal and social definition of marriage, eliminate gay marriage as a political issue, and not have any measurable effects on anyone's marriage. "Married" would become a social label, not a legal one. It would be up to society, not politicians and judges, to decide whether to accept that label or not.
nedzeveJan 23, 2011
Though I think you're absolutely correct, I don't think it's fair to say you "wholeheartedly" agree with the Pope. The Pope's aim isn't to assert a separation between church and state. Rather his aim is to discriminate against certain classes of people.
brandonsand1Jan 24, 2011
I didn't think that's what he was implying but I just thought it was a good jumping off point to get to its relevance in the US. As far as his aim, at least from what I gather from the article, is not to discriminate against certain classes, but to simply state that if you want to be married, you have to be committed to it, because you dont have the inalienable right to marry. If you're talking about his underlying intentions however, I think that is a complete waste of time and energy, because there is no way to prove what he is thinking.
icadilJan 23, 2011
Don't they use the marriage ceremony money to cover up the molestation though?
ninjarickyJan 23, 2011
Marriage is not an absolute right, but hiding pedophile priests from local law enforcement and sweeping it under the rug is A-Ok huh? f**k the Pope, and the blind sheep that obey him.
nedzeveJan 23, 2011
I wish the Pope would realize the RCC has no moral leg to stand on and just STFU.
aristotle0dudeJan 23, 2011
Marriage requires a license = not a right.
Driving a car require a license = not a right.
Speech does not require a license = a right
Adoption is also not a right. Children are not property to be bought and sold to anyone who wants one.
Anything that has a specific requirements and requires a license from the state is not a right. Everyone has access to the fundamental rights and freedoms and fundamental human rights. Marriage is not a human right. It is an institution and requires permission from the church and/or state. Marriage is also a legal binding agreement between two people who have to meet a specific set of criteria which include not being closely related by marriage or blood, being of the age of majority (or with parental permission) etc, etc, etc. Do you get the picture yet? It is not a right.
geezorJan 23, 2011
Protesting requires a license = not a right?
Voting requires a registration = not a right?
The Supreme Court has already ruled that requiring protesters to acquire a license on when, where, and how to protest is perfect valid even while maintaining that protesting is a right. Ditto with voting.
aristotle0dudeJan 23, 2011
Holding an organized demonstration/rally requires a license to be obtained by the organizers. Participants do not require a license. Civil disobedience does not require a license. Voting registration is not a license. You are proving that you have a right to vote in a particular area so that you don't abuse that right by voting multiple times in multiple places. There is no "fee" involved".
geezorJan 23, 2011
"Proving you have a right" is just the same as a license. A driver's license "proves you have the right to drive".
To try to make marriage sound inferior to voting completely ignores the history of voting where women and blacks had to fight to vote.
The whole "fee" issue is also moot because voting in the U.S. was originally restricted to land-owners and they were subject to property tax. So you didn't vote unless you paid the "fee" of property tax. Also, the fee most states charge isn't for marriage, it's a filing fee to do the paperwork. And it's not called a license, it's called "marriage registration". Folks who married abroad would register their marriage in the U.S. -- it doesn't mean they re-marry in the U.S. and if you marry someone else without divorcing the first spouse, the U.S. can file polygamy charges against you, even though one of your marriages was abroad.
If folks fight for their right to marry, just as others fought for their right to vote, I say godspeed and wish them luck. Rights are often fought for.
ThealttabJan 26, 2011
You'd think the church would be doing anything it can to create a revenue stream at this point. They need a PR or CEO consultant
http://www.thealttab.com/2011/01/pope-says-not-everyone-has-right-to-be.html