Same sex marriage

[StatCrux]

Odd that you aren't against the redefinition of marriage in 1601 to what you just quoted. As summer pointed out, there are earlier definitions. So it looks like the church redefined "traditional" marriage over 400 years ago, and yet you are complaining about it being done today?

Sorry, had to chuckle, 1601 isn't a date its the paragraph number in the Catechism

[thesummerqueen]

Doesn't change the point, sweet pea.

[Tobie]

Have you any proof that marriage equality groups have an anti-church agenda?

I've spoken directly to gay campaigners that have stated that their intention is to gain a ruling from the European court of Human rights in Strasbourg that the Catholic Church is in violation of human rights be refusing same sex couples to be married. They know the Church will not change but the publicity would be huge.

That means they're against those who are against them. If someone was actively discriminating against you, you wouldn't support them, would you?

[StatCrux]

Doesn't change the point, sweet pea.

Simply stated my position is that I cannot understand why pressure groups are so determined to change the name civil partnership to marriage, given that nothing in practical terms regarding the law etc will change and the amount of conflict and anger it will cause. I can only assume that these groups intend conflict and anger and love to cause it..and wish to try and force Churches legally to perform same sex marriages in the future.

Blessed are the peacemakers...

[thesummerqueen]

[sigh]

[Tiberius]

Odd that you aren't against the redefinition of marriage in 1601 to what you just quoted. As summer pointed out, there are earlier definitions. So it looks like the church redefined "traditional" marriage over 400 years ago, and yet you are complaining about it being done today?

Sorry, had to chuckle, 1601 isn't a date its the paragraph number in the Catechism

Fair enough, when was that quote written?

[Nine]

Simply stated my position is that I cannot understand why pressure groups are so determined to change the name civil partnership to marriage, given that nothing in practical terms regarding the law etc will change and the amount of conflict and anger it will cause. I can only assume that these groups intend conflict and anger and love to cause it..and wish to try and force Churches legally to perform same sex marriages in the future.

NO they want to get married. They don't want to be pawned off as second class. The only conflict and anger is from the archaic beliefs of the homophobic sex obsessed church. Nobody is forcing anything. This gives the churches a chance to choose if they want to or not.

[thesummerqueen]

That's why my idea would be better.

Stop all of this nonsense. I feel like I'm talking to Existentialist again.

[StatCrux]

Odd that you aren't against the redefinition of marriage in 1601 to what you just quoted. As summer pointed out, there are earlier definitions. So it looks like the church redefined "traditional" marriage over 400 years ago, and yet you are complaining about it being done today?

Sorry, had to chuckle, 1601 isn't a date its the paragraph number in the Catechism

Fair enough, when was that quote written?

The sacrament of marriage was formally recognised as dogma in 1431 The council of Florence.

[thesummerqueen]

WAY after marriage of any form was instituted.

Your church doesn't have a monopoly on shit.