Vatican: ‘Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer Christians’ Bishops say

[HVC]

Roman law recognised consequences of marriage long before Augustus.

even Hammurabi's code has rules regarding marriage

[Siege]

I don't think we should respect all cultures and religions.

For example, I find the culture/religion of orthodox Jews deeply inferior and disgusting. 

These guys?


I totally agree!!!

[Martinus]

I don't think we should respect all cultures and religions.

For example, I find the culture/religion of orthodox Jews deeply inferior and disgusting. 

These guys?


I totally agree!!!

Yeah. Dressing like this or refusing to eat pork is retarded.

[Siege]

[garbon]

considering most long term gay relationships are sexless.

Aren't all long term relationships, gay or straight?

Yes, this is why we are single men, isn't it? The lack of sex, not our abrasive personalities. 

Your personalities explain why you are single and sexless?

After all, don't the various stats show married people having more sex than singles?

[Siege]

[viper37]

Why is government-sanctioned marriage a mistake? Seems to me it performs lots of useful functions - ease of transfer of benefits, for example. What's the drawback?

I don't really understand his position either... The Church is only an intermediary, ultimately, it's the State who really decides if you're married or not.  Your church may allow you to marry a dog or a frog, but Canada and none of its province would recognize it.

[Malthus]

Why is government-sanctioned marriage a mistake? Seems to me it performs lots of useful functions - ease of transfer of benefits, for example. What's the drawback?

This is such a bullshit "oh I will say something controversial to sound smart" trope that I don't even bother to answer.

Fuck you, Mart.  And it's a mistake for the double-standard it set, which is what has the pope doing more verbal gymnastics than Mace Windu right now.

They wanted to extend benefits to families, which come with extra costs of raising a child and maintaining the home.  And then more people chose or became okay with childless relationships, so it became a government principle based on a tenet of a handful of religions.  All while saying that the government shouldn't be interfering in church affairs, and at least here in the US, there should even be a complete chinese wall between church and state.

Marriage represents a break in the chinese wall.  Simple as that.  So either the government had to redefine marriage as a secular concept (which has been happening at a glacial pace).  Or, as here, the church had to come out and say "yeah, we know it's confusing, but government marriage is not the same as church marriage."

There are still plenty of protestant conservatives who're going to be trying to cram their pastor's sermons about marriage into the law books (see North Carolina, for example), but the pope coming off the fence here should help expose those doing that for the fundy wingnuts they are.

The government graciously allows churches to officiate at weddings, as a sort of honorary state registrar.

Not sure why this is a problem - think of it as outsourcing to the private sector. 

In any event, assume that it is a big, massive problem (though again, I'm not exactly sure why). The "fix" would be to allow churches to do whatever mumbo-jumbo they want, and have a bureaucrat's stamp at some office somewhere formalize the "marriage" for state purposes. Thus, if you want the mumbo-jumbo, go to whatever church, witch-doctor, wise woman, shaman or hermit you want; then, everyone send in their form for government approval ... which is sort of more or less what already happens. 

[Martinus]

The government graciously allows churches to officiate at weddings, as a sort of honorary state registrar.

Not sure why this is a problem - think of it as outsourcing to the private sector. 

In any event, assume that it is a big, massive problem (though again, I'm not exactly sure why). The "fix" would be to allow churches to do whatever mumbo-jumbo they want, and have a bureaucrat's stamp at some office somewhere formalize the "marriage" for state purposes. Thus, if you want the mumbo-jumbo, go to whatever church, witch-doctor, wise woman, shaman or hermit you want; then, everyone send in their form for government approval ... which is sort of more or less what already happens.

Yeah that's how it is done in Poland (and we are a near-theocracy) and pretty much every other European country. It seems to be one of those American things where they take some bizarre outlier from their own strange legal system and extrapolate widely inadequate universal principles from it.

[viper37]

They wanted to extend benefits to families, which come with extra costs of raising a child and maintaining the home. 

the benefits were first extended to married couples, no matter if they had kids or not.
Wich is silly imho.

[Martinus]

Ok, anyone, what's Siege's shtick? 

[Malthus]

Ok, anyone, what's Siege's shtick? 

Vaguely threatening lunacy?   

[Razgovory]

Ok, anyone, what's Siege's shtick? 

Vaguely threatening lunacy?   

Yeah, he's sort of stepping on my toes here.

[crazy canuck]

Ok, anyone, what's Siege's shtick? 

The only time he drops the act is when he is discussing ancient Rome.  Go to the Rome thread to see the difference.

[DontSayBanana]

the benefits were first extended to married couples, no matter if they had kids or not.
Wich is silly imho.

Because the assumption was that a "healthy" marriage would result in children.  Again, that's been one of my big complaints about the patchwork system of sanctioning marriage.  There needs to be some sort of commonality to the eligible couples, so it's either the children or the cohabitation.  If it's the cohabitation, all couples need to be eligible, regardless of sex, if it's the children, childless couples (voluntary or involuntary) should not be eligible for financial relief via marriage.