[Closed] attention seeker needs more publicity....

To be fair, living in sin, whilst technically accurate, does automatically think that people are wallowing in gluttony, envy, etc every night,

Hmmm.. am I allowed to be married but still living in sin? 😉

"living in sin" persists because it sounds fun nowadays rather than the slur that it was when used by the old farts and nasty types when it was initially coined.

If by sinning you mean spending too long assembling/cleaning/riding bikes then yes, it's encouraged! The shinier the better!

My point is how can this phrase be "technically accurate"?

What is "sin" - are these couples living outside of the laws of the land? = No

So "sin" is therefore "outside of normal morality"??, again, No, not based on the way the public sense of morality has developed over the last 10-20 years.

If by sinning you mean spending too long assembling/cleaning/riding bikes then yes, it's encouraged! The shinier the better!

Well I was mainly thinking the sin of onanism, but yeah, that too I guess.

What I find most amusing is the cardinal's "logic" that same-sex marriage[i] "deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father."[/i]

By that argument, opposite-sex marriage deprives a child of having two dads, or two mums.

Or perhaps he means that if same-sex marriage is unavailable then gay folk will most likely "cure" themselves so they can marry the opposite sex?

pretty sure that is also a type of shining something Graham

Actually the origin is interesting as well seeing we are discussing bible and mariiage - anyone done this recently - provide your dead brothers wife with children bit not anything else

Biblical account

After Onan's brother Er died, his father Judah told him to fulfill his duty as a brother-in-law to Tamar, by giving her offspring. Centuries later, in the days of Moses, this practice was formulated into a law of a Levirate marriage, where the brother of the deceased would provide offspring to the childless widow[2] to preserve the family line.[1]

However, when Onan had sex with Tamar, he disregarded this principle when he withdrew before climax[3] and "spilled his seed (or semen) on the ground", since any child born would not legally be considered his heir.[4] This he did several times,[5] disregarding the principle of a Levirate union, and was accordingly sentenced to death by Yahweh for this wickedness. (Genesis 38:8-10)

graham he also argued against slavery in his speech so I am not sure logic or biblical scholar were his prime skill set ...reactionary loudmouth, ill informed , out of touvh, neve rbacks down so he is a Big Hitter if nothing else 😉

My friends and family are the only ones I really care about. Most other legal and financial requirements that I'm aware of are covered with a will, we don't qualify for state benefits (other than child benefit of course), and neither of us want to get married just to qualify for some tax break or other - that's not exactly doing it for the right reasons is it?!

Are there not also other issues? As I understand it, if you're partner's seriously ill in hospital you have to visiting rights or any right to be consulted on organ donation of funeral arrangements if the worst happens. All those decisions will be made by her family.

Rather that than Coffee-shop catholicism or coffee-shop freedom expression [b]where people merely pick and choose what they want to hear/allow.[/b]

A bit of reflection perhaps - mocking religious figure is no better than mocking others. Take the moral high ground and respect their views (RC Church) even when they appear intolerant.

As we've discussed though, the Church has already picked and chosen the bits of the bible it wants to make an issue out of, while other bits have been quietly ignored as they are inconvenient/silly. Why is this the issue they are taking a stand over, rather than the mixing of wool and linen - an equally pernicious problem in modern society?

Are there not also other issues? As I understand it, if you're partner's seriously ill in hospital you have to visiting rights or any right to be consulted on organ donation of funeral arrangements if the worst happens. All those decisions will be made by her family.

Yeah, if you're not married (or civilly unionised)then you're not classed as next of kin, which means you can't be given medical information about your partner, or have a say in treatment, if I understand it correctly. Probably less of an issue if you're on good terms with their family, and also probably depends on the doctor/hospital, but still something to think about.

As we've discussed though, the Church has already picked and chosen the bits of the bible it wants to make an issue out of, while other bits have been quietly ignored as they are inconvenient/silly. Why is this the issue they are taking a stand over, rather than the mixing of wool and linen - an equally pervasive and pernicious problem in modern society?

Indeed. In fact, lots of Christians are able to overlook the very clear teaching from Jesus about remarriage after divorce yet are able to interpret some more obscure references to Teh Gays in a much more vocal way.

[i]To take it to an extreme, if public transport was segregated into gay/straight, with identical standards of seating, etc would that still be ok?[/i]

I think you're twisting the metaphor a bit. It's more like a case where anyone's allowed on a bus, but if a man and a woman sit next to each other it's call 'sitting together' and if a man and another man, or woman and another woman, sit next to each other it's officially called 'bottom-based co-resting', but everyone just refers to it as 'sitting together' anyway.

As I understand it, if you're partner's seriously ill in hospital you have to visiting rights or any right to be consulted on organ donation of funeral arrangements if the worst happens. All those decisions will be made by her family.

'bottom-based co-resting'

Brilliant. Got to love a tortuously over-extended metaphor. 😀

[i]However, since civil partnerships have the same legal rights as marriage this shouldn't be an issue for most?[/i]

Except currently, as a hetero couple, you can't have a civil partnership. But you can get married in a civil ceremony, which would appear to ultimately be the same thing.

rkk01,

Fair point and one that I retract. I try not to use that sort of terminology on a daily basis (not believing in a god and all that) so this was pretty unforgivable (unless you are religious, in which case you could forgive me if your faith allows/mandates it).

Open question... How important is a nuclear family in a modern society? Would the raising of children in communal creches (think Brave New World) be a better option for a society trying (in most cases) to be more open and tolerant?

Whilst quoting the Old Testament is amusing it isn't very useful if you are looking for the origin of the Christian message, you should really be quoting the New Testament. Even that is a reflection of the societies that wrote it and full of contradictions. You thought Christians were peace loving and turned the other cheek? Read Luke Chapter 19 Verses 24-27.

The Cardinal does have a point about children doing better with united heterosexual parents. Children with divorced parents, single mothers and same-sex parents do do less well than than children with both heterosexual parents present. [url= http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications_states/files/0086.pdf ]This American report says children with same-sex parents are comparable to (no worse than) those with divorced parents.[/url]

grum - Member
As we've discussed though, the Church has already picked and chosen the bits of the bible it wants to make an issue out of, while other bits have been quietly ignored as they are inconvenient/silly. Why is this the issue they are taking a stand over, rather than the mixing of wool and linen - an equally pernicious problem in modern society?

Because "for better or worse" (pardon the pun), this is something that they perceive as being important to them. If that is what the Vatican believes and wished to promote, then the Cardinal should reflect that however odd that may seem to the rest of us?

I got married in a park next to the Pacific ocean in the NW USA. I'm legally married but there was no church involved. That suits me fine and I think that the majority of gay people will be happy with not being able to be married in church (unless they find a church that is okay with that).

So...

Can we get a sticky on this subject. Whenever it comes up Edukator will take his usual stance insisting homosexuals should find a new name to call being married (despite saying gay people should be equal; only less equal than straight people). Almost everyone else will say they don't get what the problem is as the government isn't forcing churches, synagogues, temples or mosques to perform gay marriages. We get this thread every couple of months when some dress-wearing ****wit courts the media to remind everyone how not-at-all relevant his particular institution is (honestly, you'd think that these were paid anti-church activists the way they damage the image of their churches).

[IMG] [/IMG]

The Cardinal does have a point about children doing better with united heterosexual parents.

But the report you quite says that "cohabiting families" fare less well than married couples. So perhaps if we were to allow homosexual couples to get married that might improve the odds? Or am I just reading parts of the report that reinforce my personal beliefs?

Of course it also notes that many children raised in homosexual households also fall afoul of the problems that kids from divorced households have (the implication being that many are born into "straight" families, then one realises/accepts they're gay or can't contain the thing they've known all along). So again, perhaps if we were to make homosexuals COMPLETELY EQUAL to heterosexuals, the stigma of coming out would go away and people wouldn't have to live a lie?

Who knows?

Good point, we should get stickies put up covering every subject that's discussed more frequently than once per year. That should put an end to anyone airing (new or recycled) thoughts and opinions!

I don't come on the forum that much so this is the first of these threads I've seen and I've quite enjoyed it (and learnt something).

i think, IIRC, marriage was made up by the religions because the religions were made up by the tribal leaders way back in the day to control the people, before marriage everyone was humping everyone else and there were bairns popping out left right and centre and not enough food and reqources to go round. when the leaders saw this they though "****, were gonna run out of resources if we carry on in this promiscuous lifestyle" though it probably sounded more like, "ugh , no food, ugh, too much shagging, ugh, stop it" so the religions were created to control the people and marriage was created to stop folk going and putting it about all over the shop, one partner, less bairns(at least thats the theory). over a few years (say a few thousand) it has evolved into the wierd and wonderful thing that everyone is stressing about now.
in the end, if you love someone, who cares? just stick it to 'em 😀 ( but only if its consensual).

I just skimmed that report, but the conclusion it draws seems to be that children raised by both natural parents who are married to each other will do much better in life than any others, unless they don't, in which case children raised in some other situation might do better but they're not really too sure which ones as there are really far too many variables to be able to realistically measure what influences the upbringing of children in any one part of society.

Of course it also notes that many children raised in homosexual households also fall afoul of the problems that kids from divorced households have (the implication being that many are born into "straight" families, then one realises/accepts they're gay or can't contain the thing they've known all along).

Well exactly. My point was really that you can read the report in a variety of ways to reinforce any particular opinion you might have.

Don't wanna have different names for being married. That's it really. No special names, no different but really the same nudge nudge wink wink.

Just: The Same

Don't care personally about religion, but they were happy to pour water on my head, and I'll bet they'll be happy to bury me..

Whilst quoting the Old Testament is amusing it isn't very useful if you are looking for the origin of the Christian message,

This American report says children with same-sex parents are comparable to (no worse than) those with divorced parents.

Ps couples who get married and then stay married may be more stable, open , educated, well balanced than those who divorce and divorce or non marriage may be yet another symptom of the "underlying condition" etc

This is poor science and we could hypotheiss all day about what this means and what the cuases are.

marriage was made up by the religions

A clear commitment between same-sex partners may help with part of the difference:

Among the apparent explanations were that married parents are more
likely to pool their earnings, husbands work longer hours and earn more, and married families
receive more assistance from family, friends, and the community

However, when I had to do a bit of child psychology in relation to learning, a great deal of importance was given to the role models provided by parents - male and female. For example, in Indian immigrant families in Leicester the fathers are much older than the mothers. That combined with a high incidence of cardio-vascular disease leads to children losing the father figure relatively young. The oldest male child takes control at home, not good for the teachers, the mother or the siblings. If you want to accuse me of being racist and sexist after reading that then I'd rather you rant at my PGCE lecturer then me.

Each case needs to be taken on its merits but there is plenty of evidence that children raised by their united biological parents do best.

Each case needs to be taken on its merits but there is plenty of evidence that children of united biological parents do best.

Even if this were true, which I doubt, how does it have any bearing on whether people in a same-sex relationship can officially be called "married" rather than "in a civil partnership"??

You could equally argue that there is plenty of evidence that children of upper-income parents do best, so poor people should not be allowed to marry.

[i]Don't wanna have different names for being married. That's it really. No special names, no different but really the same nudge nudge wink wink.

Just: The Same[/i]

I totally agree, it's absurd that it has a different name.

i have a degree in Psychology and a PGCE and youe argument from authority is BS - I have been a scoial worker and i have woprked with abused kids if that helps
It is a complicated picture and it requires more than the simplistic tabloid sound bite explanations that you offer
Yes I may be the case that where the parents stay together kids do better..its like a happy home makes you happy...fricking Genius stuff this

i would also guess divorce makes you poorer and less happy when your parents split up

Perhaps better to compare them [divorced] to people who stay in unhappy loveless marriages though than those who are happily married and love each other

when you compare chalk and cheese what you find is meaningless.

The oldest male child takes control at home, not good for the teachers, the mother or the siblings.

It doesn't Graham, It's a reply to your post about depriving children of having two mums/dads.

I've provided evidence to support the Cardinals view that depriving children of either the male or female role model is not good. I had to spend time pulling dusty books of library shelves and trying to deal with fatherless 14-year-old heads of household, I'm sure that Google will throw up plenty of studies for you to read without even standing up.

Edit to reply to Junkyard: the children from Indian families with both parents present were good students.

it's absurd that it has a different name.

emsz - from your internet persona you don't seem the kind of person that would be overly bothered either way. Maybe apathy isn't the right attitude but surely I'm not the only person who has other things to worry about?!

Do you mean worse than the alternative or worse than if the dead parent was still alive?

Worse than if one parent was a zombie?

[img] http://sitb-images-eu.amazon.com/Qffs+v35leriC8YrgeK0FzguGQ0362f0XaMfHTAXQ4ymVTUc7/3W6p5C/VyUhjxWKNjBRKDsRyU= [/img]
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/156975926X

What does the educational outcomes of the children have to do with whether gay people should be treated equally?

I've provided evidence to support the Cardinals view that depriving children of either the male or female role model is not good.

See I'd maybe agree with that. But a role model doesn't have to be a parent.
Just because a child has two dads doesn't mean there are no good female role models in their lives.

As I said, children of wealthy parents do "better" than children of poor parents. So do you or the cardinal object to poor people getting married on the same basis?

I've provided evidence to support the Cardinals view that depriving children of either the male or female role model is not good.

Can you now explain how that applies to the argument that gays should or shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Yes - I'd like to know that one - I can't even have kids so how does the kids argument stop me getting married??

Rachel

tonyd - Member

"it's absurd that it has a different name."

I agree also, but does it really matter that much if it's called something else?

4 pages in and you can't tell?

What does "BS" stand for Junkyard. I assume it means you're calling me a liar (again). As a psychologist you should know how people react when you acuse them of lying and what other people will think of the accuser when it's clear i'm not lying. The paper I quoted states children with same-sex parents do less well, I've linked it, that doesn't make me a BSer.

Edit: I'm not making a connection Mike and Rachel, I'm just supporting what the Cardinal says about children being deprived of male and female parents. I just think "marriage" is the wrong word for a same-sex union.

I just think "marriage" is the wrong word for a same-sex union.

Why?

I just think "marriage" is the wrong word for a same-sex union.

Despite the fact that this is what the vast majority of people will call it and understand it to be? And that it has no legal difference other than name?

You're still neatly skipping round my point that children also "do best" with wealthy parents. Should we allow rich same-sex marriage and disallow marriage of low income couples? Surely that would be "better" for children?

Or maybe we should just have a different word for marriage between poor people? 🙄

You're still neatly skipping round my point about children "do best" with wealthy parents.

And around the fact that changing the name of the same sex union isn't going to magically alter the number of children with married heterosexual parents.

The cardinal is just trying to justify the long standing homophobic views of the catholic church.

I haven't skipped around your point about children doing best with wealthy parents, Graham. I have stated that children also benefit from having both male and female role models, and given you a specific example of families in which the absence of a father results in the eldest son becoming a distruptive element in the family and in school - irrespective of the wealth of the family.