Same-sex marriage ban blasted by coalition of faith groups and religious leaders

[rug]

May 1 2012 By Mark McLaughlin

THE ban on same-sex marriage was yesterday branded “discriminatory and reinforcing homophobia”.

A coalition of faith groups and religious leaders, Faith in Marriage, launched a campaign outside the Scottish Parliament to lift the ban on religious same-sex marriage.

It followed the launch yesterday of a leaflet by Scotland for Marriage, another coalition of faith groups and religious leaders who believe religious same-sex unions will “dismantle marriage which has only ever meant the union of a man and a woman”.

Faith in Marriage representatives handed over an open letter to MSPs, demanding the right to conduct same-sex marriages. It stated: “We believe lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people should be entitled to full equality under the law.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/2012/05/01/same-sex-marriage-ban-blasted-by-coalition-of-faith-groups-and-religious-leaders-86908-23843591/

[cbayer]

1. Push back, good people

[opiate69]

2. Good on `em.

Hopefully it`s a spark that`ll light a similar fire here in the States

[laconicsax]

3. Where do you stand on this issue, rug?

I assume you're pro-equality, but you didn't have anything to say about your church's leadership calling for a worldwide holy war against same-sex marriage, so I'm curious to know where you stand.

[rug]

4. No you're not curious. You're engaging in your usual disingenuous baiting.

Nevertheless, here is your answer:

The Catholic Church is competent only to define its own sacramental marriages, nothing more. It is incompetent to define what any given society chooses to define as marriage. Consequently, any call for a "holy war" is ludicrous.

As to the "holy war" itself, click the link for the full text of his address: http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/Home/News-Releases/Apostolic-Nuncio-addresses-Bishops-of-England-and-Wales/(language)/eng-GB. Read it. It's a far cry from calling for a holy war, particularly one it is not competent to declare.

There's your answer. Now parse it carefully so you can tweak it to make your actual point, not that I haven't heard it from you before ad nauseam

[laconicsax]

5. Your answer is to quote the homophobic ravings of a Vatican representative?

I acknowledge that Mennini never used the words "holy war" and I retract that part of my comment. What remains unanswered is the question of your position on the coalition that Mennini and Smith have talked about. Pointing out errors in reporting rather than discuss the issue is exactly what I have come to expect of you, and you didn't disappoint.

I will ask more directly this time:

Do you stand with your church's leadership in condemning marriage equality and seeking to fight it at every turn?

[rug]

6. Ah, there it is.

Considering you began your latest baiting exercise with a (misquote) from Menini, accuracy is better served by posting the actual speech rather than your twist of it.

To be more precise, the RCC is not opposing marriage equality, it declares anything other than heterosexual marriage to be a nullity. That is a much broader and more objectionable position but it's a more correct frame than your attempt to suggest practicing Catholics inherently cannot support marriage equality.

Now, as to my view, which is of no moment other than to your peculiar game, I refer you to my prior post. The RCC has no authority or competence in the area of civil unions. It is none of their business.

If you need it broken down more simply, the answer is no.

In the meantime, learn a new game.

[laconicsax]

7. "the RCC is not opposing marriage equality"

No, of course not. They're just looking for allies to help them oppose marriage equality legislation.

Is there anything the RCC does that you aren't willing to defend?

[rug]

9. Why don't you excerpt it all?

"To be more precise, the RCC is not opposing marriage equality, it declares anything other than heterosexual marriage to be a nullity. That is a much broader and more objectionable position"

Doesn't suit your narrative?

[laconicsax]

11. I prefer to tackle one deliberate falsehood at a time.

Post your proof that the RCC doesn't oppose marriage equality.

[rug]

12. Or perpetrate one.

[laconicsax]

14. What a compelling proof that the RCC doesn't oppose marriage equality!

[font color="white"]You didn't even try to use invisible text.[/font]

[rug]

16. You cannot have two unequal marriages if one is not considered a marriage at all.

Do you contend the RCC considers a same-sex marriage to be a marriage?

[laconicsax]

19. Nice try.

Do you really not think that considering a same-sex marriage to not be a marriage isn't an opposition to same-sex marriage?

I'm still waiting for your proof that the RCC doesn't oppose marriage equality. Maybe a press release about the Pope endorsing same-sex marriage or a news article about Vatican representatives talking about building a coalition to press for the passage of marriage equality legislation. I'm sure that if your claim that "the RCC is not opposing marriage equality" is at all true, you can back it up with facts and not arguments based on homophobia.

[trotsky]

8. Why did you change the subject from marriage to civil unions?

Do you believe your church is correct in opposing same-sex marriage? Do you believe instead that homosexual couples should only have the right to civil unions, but not marriage?

[rug]

10. I haven't. "It is incompetent to define what any given society chooses to define as marriage."

Read #4.

I see you want part of this game.

[laconicsax]

13. You absolutely did.

You went from saying that the RCC doesn't oppose marriage equality to saying that they have no authority over civil unions.

I believe your exact words were

To be more precise, the RCC is not opposing marriage equality, it declares anything other than heterosexual marriage to be a nullity. That is a much broader and more objectionable position but it's a more correct frame than your attempt to suggest practicing Catholics inherently cannot support marriage equality.

Now, as to my view, which is of no moment other than to your peculiar game, I refer you to my prior post. The RCC has no authority or competence in the area of civil unions. It is none of their business.

(emphasis mine)

[rug]

15. Nice try.

You do realize that marriage is, among other things, a civil union. The converse can not be said.

Now, tell me what I meant in #4.

[laconicsax]

17. You've still yet to answer trotsky's questions.

I'll repeat them in case you forgot (or don't want to scroll up):

Do you believe your church is correct in opposing same-sex marriage? Do you believe instead that homosexual couples should only have the right to civil unions, but not marriage?

I understand that you're not usually one to take a stand on issues when it comes to bigoted Church policies, but answers would be greatly appreciated

[rug]

18. Then he can ask me. I understand you welcome a diversion but you haven't answered mine.

[laconicsax]

20. He did ask you. You didn't answer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121824401#post8

[rug]

21. I did. You haven't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=24499

[laconicsax]

22. That isn't an answer to what was asked.

It doesn't answer the question, "Do you believe your church is correct in opposing same-sex marriage?"
It doesn't answer the question, "Do you believe instead that homosexual couples should only have the right to civil unions, but not marriage?"

Why are you so reluctant to answer those questions?

[rug]

23. Answer mine.

Why are you so reluctant to answer?

[laconicsax]

24. I don't see why your answer to trotsky's questions should be dependent on my answering yours.

[rug]

25. I see. You won't answer. Game over.

And a tedious one at that.

[laconicsax]

26. In other words...I refused to play your game so you're leaving.

Is the reason why you won't answer whether "your church is correct in opposing same-sex marriage" and whether you "believe instead that homosexual couples should only have the right to civil unions, but not marriage" because the answer is against the TOS?

[rug]

27. I'm leaving the game you started

way back when with your innocent curious question.

If you try to accuse someone of homophobia, don't be oblique.

Pathetic.

[laconicsax]

28. I don't consider the RCC's overt homophobia to be a game.

Is marriage equality just a game to you?

[trotsky]

29. No game here, rug.

I just want to know if your opinion varies whether the term used is "marriage" or "civil union." Would really appreciate this opportunity to dialog and understand where you as an average practicing Catholic come down on this issue.

Thanks very much!