Pope says future of mankind at stake over gay marriage

Wow. I'd prescribe research for your stereotypes.

Should we laugh or should we cry?

Neither . . . in any rational, larger picture the whole kafuffle amounts to nothing at all.

The Cs tell us that as long people actually love each other, their Earth suits matter not. And they also tell us that as a race humanity has its notions in respect of what Love is and is not completely fouled up.

We have larger fish to fry it would seem than to concern ourselves, even briefly, with the ramblings of an ostensibly celibate old man with sandstone testicles.

Neither laugh, nor cry. Simply ignore.

They do have the same rights. If two heterosexuals of the same sex, who like - or 'love' - each other very much want to get married by a religious ceremony in church, they can't.

It might well be a great venue and a fabulous day out, but it goes against the explicitly stated creeds and dogmas of belief that constitute almost every religion on earth. Forcing churches to hold marriage ceremonies for homosexuals is an act of bigotry and much more of a 'hate crime' than not wanting homosexuals to stay together in a family run B&B.

Some people don't agree with homosexuality - get over it !

Sim, what you wrote was so surreal that I had to ponder for 5 minutes whether it was a joke or real. I haven't come to a conclusion.
Peace by peace:

"They do have the same rights. If two heterosexuals of the same sex, who like - or 'love' - each other very much want to get married by a religious ceremony in church, they can't."

They don't have the same rights. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry, homosexuals aren't. And if two "heterosexuals of the same sex" want to get married, they obviously aren't heterosexual - even the walls think this is obvious...

Now most important: The fight for rights HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHURCHES! There is an essential, fundamental, elementary difference between CIVIL marriage and RELIGIOUS marriage. How old are you? I learned this basic concept around ten years old. I mean, really, this is a basic thing in life. One would have thought that an adult should know this by the age they are able to formulate and post opinions around..

But just in case, I will explain: civil marriage is a CIVIL right, it has to do with how people relate to THE STATE (government) - when they are born, they get a birth certificate; when they get married, they get a marriage certificate; when people die, there's a paper that proves it too.

Religious marriage is something else altogether, it has to do with a specific rite within a religion of choice.
Most people get married in civil and religious, but not all. Many do just one. So the right gay people want is a CIVIL right, no church would be force to do or cease doing anything. This is how it works in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Canada.......... in civilized societies.

This fairy tale about "churches being forced to this or that" is a story that fundamentalist religious leaders like tele evangelists tell their sheep, in order to get them mad and make them protest agains their fellows CIVIL rights, naively thinking that they are protecting church, when, indeed, even in countries where same-sex marriage is allowed, no churches have been forced to anything. Now, I understand such religion manipulated and poorly educated people exist, but that someone with that profile would be reading SOTT is hard to picture.

Last but not least: people that don't agree with homosexuality have the divine right to keep disagreeing forever, if they wish. I myself don't disagree with so many things: bigotry, for instance. Yet, I don't go around passing laws for this people to be deprived of basic civil rights.

When I don't agree with something, I usually refrain from doing it. That's what "people that don't agree with homosexuality" should do: NOT TO GET married with a person of the same sex - unless they are having some difficulty crossing that item off their to do list??!

Instead of forcing their opinion upon others (that were born free) by the means of passing laws that favor only one side.

I meant "piece by piece". Non-native English speaker here.

eal

What is a civic partnership if it is not a marriage under civic law. Nobody seeks to deny a civic partnership to any, heterosexuals or homosexuals. The marriage that is sought through changes in the law is the religious rite of marriage in a church. Why else is there any controversy? If it has nothing to do with churches, then why are they even involved by the civic authorities and the legislatures who enact statute law?

And what do you say - "if two heterosexuals want to get married they obviously aren't heterosexual"? Really? you don't know or have not heard of a couple of the same sex that live together as a couple but would be appalled to be thought of as homosexual? How sheltered you are.

And "now most important", there is an essential difference between civil and religious marriage. The change in law, and rite, that the gay political movement wants is a religious, not a civic rite. If it were not then the churches, Judaic, Christian and Muslim, as well as Hindu, Sikh etc etc, would have absolutely no say, whatever their opinion.

It is absolutely a fact that this issue is fundamentally about forcing religious bodies to carry out marriage ceremonies against there will. Otherwise who gives a tuppenny f-ck what the opinion of any church is? Least of all any legislature!

"Yet I don't go around passing laws for this people to be deprived of their basic civil rights" - what laws are these? Name them. What is sought is a change in law not to remove restrictions but instead to impose restrictions. To force people to carry out actions against their will.

In the end is the question "what is marriage?". If marriage is a civic agreement between two people that they be treated under civic law as a unified couple, then there is no opposition, from any but the most fundementalist fanatics. And certainly not from any of the prelates that sit in the uk's second chamber (different argument, different time!

Your last paragraph about forcing one's opinion upon others by the passing of laws that favour only one side. Which laws are these? Surely you must be talking about the forcing of gay marriage laws on religions that are fundementally opposed to the idea, for there are no other statute laws forbidding a civic union between people of the same sex.

Finally, on a note of agreement, forcing one's opinion upon others by passing laws that favour only one side is very definitely a bad thing!

"What is a civic partnership if it is not a marriage under civic law." -> There are substantial differences, perhaps (I don't know) not in your country, but I am talking globally. Several rights that are associated with marriage aren't assured for civic partnership, and this in MANY countries, including my own (Brazil).

Besides, it is not just a matter of equality in the legal level, but also symbolic level. And I refer to the right to use word "marriage", that some people wish to keep to themselves, excluding others. Perhaps as a way of secretly feeling hollier than thou?

"Nobody seeks to deny a civic partnership to any, heterosexuals or homosexuals. The marriage that is sought through changes in the law is the religious rite of marriage in a church. Why else is there any controversy? If it has nothing to do with churches, then why are they even involved by the civic authorities and the legislatures who enact statute law?"

You are talking about one country, and one country I don't know. Again, the news we are commenting are about the pope making a GLOBAL campaign against gay marriage. And gay marriage in most countries is undisputed understood as CIVIL marriage. Most of your points probably make sense for the UK. But that's not what the news is about.

"And what do you say - "if two heterosexuals want to get married they obviously aren't heterosexual"? Really? you don't know or have not heard of a couple of the same sex that live together as a couple but would be appalled to be thought of as homosexual? How sheltered you are."

Good thing that I don't know what sheltered means. Anyhow, the fact that they would be appalled (hot sure what that means either) for being thought of as homosexual does not change what they are. If they relate with same sex, they are homosexual. That is kind of the very definition of homosexual. Besides, this case seems to be a rare exception and very particular case. Not at all representative and certainly not valid to argue that the law is equal to all in this matter.

The argument that the law is fair because it "allows all" to marry the opposite sex is cynical. It's like saying a law that forbids swimming, but allows flying is equally fair for both fishes and birds, because both would have then the right to fly... like the fish just don't fly because they don't want to, but they have the right, it is there. Can you see the hipocrisy?

Everybody should be entitled to marrying the person they love (and did not chose to love) and who in turn loves he/she back (and also didn't chose). Yet, only heterosexuals have that prerrogative. So, NO, there is no equality in rights.

"Otherwise who gives a tuppenny f-ck what the opinion of any church is? Least of all any legislature!"

Certainly not me, and certainly not any gays I know in several countries, including Europe. Or if they do, it is because in their countries the church is campaigning against their right to civil marriage, even though in that country the church isn't force to accept anything. Examples are Belgium, Argentina, Canada, Netherlands, Spain and Portugal. And most of the world indeed, as the fight is for CIVIL marriage, NOT religious marriage. UK may be an exception. It is not the rule, if what you claim is true.

"Yet I don't go around passing laws for this people to be deprived of their basic civil rights" - what laws are these? Name them. What is sought is a change in law not to remove restrictions but instead to impose restrictions. To force people to carry out actions against their will."

Here we have cynicism again. If the law has always defined marriage as exclusive to man + women, than it is segregating others. The fact that the original law has always been so since the beginning of time (and we know the reason behind: religion and State used to be one), then the fight is to change the law and make it equal. In some countries, the law is not specific about that and who is trying to change the law are the fundamentalists - to exclude others from civil rights. So this thing about previous law or trying to change it is arbitrary, it changes according to country. It is what matters the least. The fact is, a part of the population has the right to civil marriage who they love, another part is excluded from that same right. And you there say it's fair and equal... you gotta be a master of illusion to hide the gigantic fact the size of Greenland that not everyone couple in love, despite being consenting tax-paying adults, are allowed to civil marry.

"In the end is the question "what is marriage?". If marriage is a civic agreement between two people that they be treated under civic law as a unified couple, then there is no opposition, from any but the most fundementalist fanatics. And certainly not from any of the prelates that sit in the uk's second chamber (different argument, different time! :)"

I have no clue of what you're talking about. This is UK's inner politics. Not really the topic of the news I commented on.

"Your last paragraph about forcing one's opinion upon others by the passing of laws that favour only one side. Which laws are these? Surely you must be talking about the forcing of gay marriage laws on religions that are fundementally opposed to the idea, for there are no other statute laws forbidding a civic union between people of the same sex."

Again, which side is trying to change the law and which side is trying to prevent it from being changed varies geographically. And certainly isn't the point. The point is: some are fighting for EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS in the 21st century.. while others are making an effort to keep CIVIL rights from being equal, because they kinda like having a privilege. This is hate and segregation.

"Finally, on a note of agreement, forcing one's opinion upon others by passing laws that favour only one side is very definitely a bad thing!"

Good, than we agree. If the law allows some coupes to civil marry, then it should allow all couples, as long as they are mutually consenting adults.

You must understand that the UK is a particular case. It is an exception. Most countries where the conflict between the people that fight for equal basic CIVIL rights and religious leaders take place are REPUBLICS in which the very legal system forbids the State to impose pretty much anything on churches. They are even exempt of tax payment. They are immune and autonomous. That is the case of Italy and Germany, for instance. Also the case of Spain, Portugal and most if not all Latin America. I think North America too, though I'm not sure about them.

SO, the global fight for the right to civil marriage the person you love is definitely *NOT* about religious marriage. It may or may not be different in the UK, because there the legal system is different and the Monarch is the head of the Lutheran Church. It is really such a peculiar case, not representative of what is going on in the world.

And what the pope declared is for the World, not just the UK. He has interfered in every country I mentioned above, where forcing churches to perform marriages they don't feel like is so unthinkable that nobody ever even talked about it all these years. It is not even an object of discussion. The fight is for a basic CIVIL right.

In fact, most homosexual are disgusted by churches. Who on Earth would want to have their relationship "blessed" by a genocidal institution with a criminal record longer than.... well, longer than so many criminals and criminal organization. Even if legal and political system DID allow churches to be forced acceptance of gay religious marriage down their throats, most homosexuals think and feel that having their relationships "blessed" by church would be like spoiling it, smearing dirt in it.. not exactly something to dream with, you know?

What a lot of

Differences, exceptions, variances.

We must define our terms or end our debate. What, exactly, are we talking about? What do You mean by marriage? By the term 'legal'? By the difference of civic as opposed to any other form of what you mean by 'marriage'?

It seems to me, from what you say, that all marriage means is the recognition by the state of a civic union for taxation, property rights and other legal matters. If so, then in the uk, and most other countries that follow a western oriented legal system, which actually includes brazil, that is already the case for homosexual couples. Maybe I have it wrong, but it seems to me that the bone of contention is that gay people are not 'entitled' to be married in church. Where else is the controversy?

Differences, exceptions, variances.

-> Yes, the world is full of them. One cannot take the UK to represent the planet...

"We must define our terms or end our debate. What, exactly, are we talking about? What do You mean by marriage? By the term 'legal'? By the difference of civic as opposed to any other form of what you mean by 'marriage'?"

-> We are talking about how everybody needs to have the same civil rights, if we are to call our societies fair and democratic. And how this is not the case, even in western oriented legal systems. Italy, Peru, Chile, several states in the US, France, Russia, even Switzerland. These are all countries with western oriented legal system that either do not grant the right to civil marriage to their citizens or give them the option of a 2nd class citizenship by means of a concession, something less than a marriage, and that often does not include ALL rights that are granted to heterosexual married couples, like rights related to tax, inheritance and so many others. It is often called civil union or civil partnership.

"It seems to me, from what you say, that all marriage means is the recognition by the state of a civic union for taxation, property rights and other legal matters. If so, then in the uk, and most other countries that follow a western oriented legal system, which actually includes brazil, that is already the case for homosexual couples. Maybe I have it wrong, but it seems to me that the bone of contention is that gay people are not 'entitled' to be married in church. Where else is the controversy?"

Then it seems wrong. Marriage means a lot more. It means a partnership, it means love, it means commitment and yatta yatta yatta as everybody knows. Like everything, it has many aspects. But I think we are here mainly disgusting its legal aspect, since its legalization or non legalization is a juridic phenomenon.
That said, yes, marriage can be properly defined as recognition by the State of a civic union. That is precisely how it works.
After everything we have discussed you still don't know that the controversy is?
The controversy is that in the 21st century an old German mummy wearing in a white dress is making an offer to other religious fundamentalists to unite and exert pressure together on governments throughout the world to keep human rights from advancing and basic civil right equality of all citizens to be established, a task in which they have been successful in MANY countries, not just here in Latin America, but also in Europe (Italy and France, for instance) and that people like you dare applaud, as you did above, claiming that "not everybody agrees with homosexuality". Well, those don't agree with homosexuality should simply not practice it, but not create OR KEEP legal restrictions to others exerting their full citizenship. Full citizenship includes state FULL recognition by the State of any two consenting adults' civil marriage. How on Earth is that wanting to much? Equal rights will never be too much. Indeed, it is the minimum one can aspire. To be treated as equal under the low.

And that is the controversy.

Wow, what a wish list. You have conflated many different things together.

Of course I know what the controversy is, gay political activists want to force others to accept their interpretation of marriage and, as evidenced from your long list, many other things as well that it seems to them, to you, are the only right and proper way of doing things. Others, with different beliefs, object to having the practice of their beliefs changed by force, under penalty of law. That is where the controversy lies.

Imposing one's own very particular view of how the world should be on others by force of law is not fair, free, democratic, loving, kind, decent, truthful or any other kind of good thing. It is bullying and quite frankly fascistic. No matter what the intention is. Doesn't that German in a nightdress, the ex-head of the Inquisistion, probably know something about the road to hell being paved with good intentions?

I find it very strange to be apparently defending the pope, I think most of the abrahamic religions would regard me as an atheist (I don't myself) and my opinion of all the abramic religions is that they are deceitful control mechanism that corrode and pervert mankind's natural sense of the numinous, our natural sense of every good thing. And I have no problem with any one who is gay, or wants to 'marry' some one of their own sex. Just forcing that opinion and belief on others, even if they hold the 'wrong' sort of ideas.

Anyway, enough. I personally observe the Solstice as being the true turn of the year and reason for celebration, but it seems more appropriate given the subject, and the date, to wish you a very happy Christmas Eduardo.

Wow, what a wish list. You have conflated many different things together.

Of course I know what the controversy is, gay political activists want to force others to accept their interpretation of marriage and, as evidenced from your long list, many other things as well that it seems to them, to you, are the only right and proper way of doing things. Others, with different beliefs, object to having the practice of their beliefs changed by force, under penalty of law. That is where the controversy lies.

-> As explained a gazillion times above, gays - political activist or not - don't care whether you or anyone else accept them or not. They do care, however, if there is no equality under the law. You read it, but pretended that you didn't understand.
It is not about acceptance from others, but it is about equality under the law. Those that do not agree are free to do so for eternity, if they wish. The consequence of their non-acceptance of homosexuals, however, should be theirs, since the decision of not accepting is also theirs.
The problem begins when the consequence of their non-acceptance is ours: by means of their using the law to place limits on other peoples basic civil rights, based on THEIR beliefs.

The equation is simple: your beliefs, your consequences.
The problem lies on: your beliefs, my consequences.

When gay people get married, it does not affect your life one bit. When you support laws that keep them from getting married, it DOES affect their life tremendously. Yet, somehow magically and skillfully, you manage to accuse THEM of wanting to use the law to "impose" their views on others. That is a lot of talent you got there!

Despite having read some 10 times the explanations on how homosexuals are not concerned with church or anyone's (but the government) acceptance, you just hide your eyes with your hands or place them on your ears and go "la la la la la la" like a child, pretending that you did not read the explanation, and go on and repeat your initial unproved statement about how gays want the force acceptance from churches or individual when in fact they just wanna live their private life without outer interference, without no one meddling. Those that have beliefs should apply them to THEIR OWN lives, like, for instance, not getting married with a person of the same gender. Forcing others to do the same is tyranny. As the pope does - and you confessed to agree:

"I find it very strange to be apparently defending the pope, I think most of the abrahamic religions would regard me as an atheist (I don't myself) and my opinion of all the abramic religions is that they are deceitful control mechanism that corrode and pervert mankind's natural sense of the numinous, our natural sense of every good thing. And I have no problem with any one who is gay, or wants to 'marry' some one of their own sex. Just forcing that opinion and belief on others, even if they hold the 'wrong' sort of ideas."

Again, where on the planet known as Earth have gay activists forced anything on others? you keep mentioning it without explaining. And when I give the example of twenty countries where homosexuals are fighting for nothing more than recognition of their basic C-I-V-I-L non-religious-at-all rights, you pretend like you never read it and go back to your circular argumentation, like a loop.

You said something about how it feels agreeing with the pope. I asked myself the same, you know? how does a SOTT reader feel while agreeing body and soul with the freakin' pope, applauding and defending that old pedophile monster.. I think I will never know. And I would like to remain not knowing.

I said NOTHING about agreeing with the pope. Let alone applauding him. You obviously don't actually read my comments and your use of innuendo to suggest I would support pedophiliac catholics is pathetic. you are starting to sound hysterical. Calm down and have a cup of tea, have a gazillion. to hold a religious marriage ceremony for people when they do not want to, under threat of legal sanction IS the position of those in favour of gay marriage. That IS hateful AND bigoted AND ignorant. It is your argument I oppose, not the pope that I support. SOTT readers like yourself obviously regard yourselves as such special people, more good, more thoughtful, better than others, that I leave the search for applause to you.