If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Top Cardinal in Scotland gives the Scottish government the silent treatment over gay marriage. Escalation of hostilities includes the dirty look, followed by threats to return home to mother   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 63
    More: Stupid, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, civil partnerships, faith groups, Scotland, First Minister Alex Salmond, Scottish Government, same-sex marriages  
•       •       •

3307 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Aug 2012 at 5:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-19 05:34:15 PM
Who gives a fark about what a outdated monarchy thinks about the rest of society?
 
2012-08-19 05:37:10 PM
The Catholic Church believes that homosexual relations should only be between a priest and an underaged boy, not married consenting adults.
 
2012-08-19 05:37:58 PM
In before "pedo". O'Brien isn't a paedophile. He simply supports paedophiles monetarily, assists in preventing them from being brought to justice, and actively obstructs attempts to reduce the damage they can do. That's totally not the same thing.
 
2012-08-19 05:38:07 PM
In the Catholic Church that is not sex, because there is no intent to prodice a new Catholic.
 
2012-08-19 05:39:38 PM
Scottish Catholics...so all five of them?
 
2012-08-19 05:40:01 PM
Bloody-minded old men.

The sooner people stop listening to then, the sooner we can get to solving the world's REAL problems.

Here's a tip: It won't involve dressing up in silly clothes and stroking the ego of an imaginary sky-fairy.
 
2012-08-19 05:41:46 PM
And the Catholic church continues to point fingers at sexual degenerates.
 
2012-08-19 05:44:28 PM
It's not like gay marriage is compulsory for everyone, so he is basically complaining that other people want to do stuff that doesn't include or affect him, and he is not happy about it. It's so unfair!
 
2012-08-19 05:51:04 PM
This is not something you would expect in a country where the traditional male dress code includes those fancy kilts.
 
2012-08-19 05:55:15 PM
Never trust a woman man wearing confortable very pretty shoes.
 
2012-08-19 05:57:32 PM
Homosexuals want to get married in the Catholic Church? No they don't.

That would be like David Duke wanting to join the NAACP. Or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being upset because his kid can't have a bar mitzvah.

It's fake outrage.
 
2012-08-19 06:00:31 PM

BitwiseShift: Never trust a woman man wearing comfortable very pretty mirrored shoes.


FTFY - where the kilt is worn even highly polished shoes are suspect. As are 80 year old women with a robust sense of humour.
 
2012-08-19 06:02:44 PM
Note to religions in first world countries: gay marriage is going to happen, you can't stop it. Get busy "discovering" a passage in your holy book of choice that supports it or be left behind by those religions that do... or get use to having your membership consisting of mainly people who live under oppressive régimes and/or poorly performing economic conditions (no, not the great recession).
 
2012-08-19 06:03:16 PM
You see if you ask me we're heterosexual by default, not by decision. It's just a question of who you fancy. It's all about aesthetics and it's fark all to do with morality.

But you try telling Begbie that.
 
2012-08-19 06:07:21 PM
I see nobody actually read the article? LOL!
 
2012-08-19 06:07:44 PM

EngineerAU: Note to religions in first world countries: gay marriage is going to happen, you can't stop it. Get busy "discovering" a passage in your holy book of choice that supports it or be left behind by those religions that do... or get use to having your membership consisting of mainly people who live under oppressive régimes and/or poorly performing economic conditions (no, not the great recession).


I think we can probably safely conclude that neither islam or catholicism will be early adopters in this one..
 
2012-08-19 06:10:28 PM
blogs.coventrytelegraph.net

/Her Majesty's Secret Service back on duty?
//God Saves the Queen and all that!
 
2012-08-19 06:12:01 PM

Ken VeryBigLiar: Scottish Catholics...so all five of them?


This is a serious issue for Alex Salmond [Scottish First Whinger] as the Thick Catholic vote is a significant chunk of his base.
 
2012-08-19 06:12:14 PM

snocone: In the Catholic Church that is not sex, because there is no intent to prodice a new Catholic.


img805.imageshack.us
 
2012-08-19 06:13:26 PM

Alphakronik: Who gives a fark about what a outdated monarchy thinks about the rest of society?

 
I don't know. Since the article is about the Scottish church, I'm not sure where the Monarchy fits in to this story. Perhaps reading the article might help?
 
 
 
2012-08-19 06:14:51 PM
So is the Top Cardinal snubbing Gay Marriage, or is he snubbing the government because he's pro-gay-marriage?
/dnrtfa

(oh, and I'm sure this thread will quickly degenerate into being either a religion thread or a pedo-priest thread. I'll just sit to the side and see which one.)
 
2012-08-19 06:17:29 PM
Dear Catholic Church,

You've had a good run. After your humble beginning as twelve crazy guys following the teachings of a hippy, you are now the world's largest, most successful business, with a global footprint, over one billion followers/income streams, trillions of dollars worth of real estate and relics, and preferential treatment in nearly every country. Unfortunately, due to education of the masses, many people are now utilizing critical thought and not blindly accepting every edict you issue. Don't let it ruffle your frock coats, though. You'll do alright. There are plenty of desperate suckers out there that will continue to believe you're the key to their eternal salvation.

So ease up and let the gays do it in the butt.

Love,

V
 
2012-08-19 06:17:44 PM

david_gaithersburg: I see nobody actually read the article? LOL!


Sshhhhhh... Don't inturrupt their Two Minutes Hate.
 
2012-08-19 06:19:10 PM

Somaticasual: EngineerAU: Note to religions in first world countries: gay marriage is going to happen, you can't stop it. Get busy "discovering" a passage in your holy book of choice that supports it or be left behind by those religions that do... or get use to having your membership consisting of mainly people who live under oppressive régimes and/or poorly performing economic conditions (no, not the great recession).

I think we can probably safely conclude that neither islam or catholicism will be early adopters in this one..


I'd suggest a more logical path would be to simply downgrade the sininess to something more akin to divorce. The old "We'd like for this not to happen, but we know its going to happen" as opposed to treating homosexuality as if it somehow this crazy unique brand of sin that transcends all other sin!
 
2012-08-19 06:19:31 PM
Aren't the Catholics against the Throne, ever since Henry VIII ?

Ken VeryBigLiar: Scottish Catholics...so all five of them?


Irish immigration I presume?
 
2012-08-19 06:25:12 PM
What's wrong with gay marriages? They look happy.

itsblogworthy.comloveandknuckles.com
 
2012-08-19 06:25:35 PM

Veramar: Alphakronik: Who gives a fark about what a outdated monarchy thinks about the rest of society?
 
I don't know. Since the article is about the Scottish church, I'm not sure where the Monarchy fits in to this story. Perhaps reading the article might help?


I know, I felt bad after posting that and actually meaning oligarchy. Sorry about the mistake. And yes, I did read the article.
 
2012-08-19 06:27:21 PM
Why would any government consult a church official about gay marriage? It's not a religious issue, it's a civil one.
 
2012-08-19 06:28:31 PM
Eventually, Christians will approve of gay marriage and will teach that their church has always approved. It was just misguided individuals who taught otherwise.

It's the way it works, guys. Or am I the only one who's noticed?
 
2012-08-19 06:31:02 PM

had98c: Why would any government consult a church official about gay marriage? It's not a religious issue, it's a civil one.


Civil union is already law, this is for religious ceremonies.
 
2012-08-19 06:36:30 PM

Spiralmonkey: had98c: Why would any government consult a church official about gay marriage? It's not a religious issue, it's a civil one.

Civil union is already law, this is for religious ceremonies.


Ahh, that whole reading the article bit. Got it, thanks.
 
2012-08-19 06:36:59 PM

Spiralmonkey: had98c: Why would any government consult a church official about gay marriage? It's not a religious issue, it's a civil one.

Civil union is already law, this is for religious ceremonies.


Um, no. No one is going to force churches to marry anyone. It's for legal marriage, with all the legal rights that entails. Civil unions are a poor substitute.

And the question remains - why the fark is a government contacting any religion for advice on the law?
 
2012-08-19 06:37:56 PM
Eh, the churches stop biatching after a while. Give it time.
 
2012-08-19 06:39:43 PM

Day_Old_Dutchie: Bloody-minded old men.

The sooner people stop listening to then, the sooner we can get to solving the world's REAL problems.

Here's a tip: It won't involve dressing up in silly clothes and stroking the ego of an imaginary sky-fairy.


It'll involve dressing up in fancy clothes and stroking the ego of the bankers printing imaginary money
 
2012-08-19 06:40:17 PM

Spiralmonkey:

Civil union is already law, this is for religious ceremonies.


No it bloody isnt, noone is even suggesting that. It is civil marriage that is being considered.

Also this is good news.. the more irrelevant these jokers make themselves the better.
 
2012-08-19 06:40:42 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Eventually, Christians will approve of gay marriage and will teach that their church has always approved. It was just misguided individuals who taught otherwise.

It's the way it works, guys. Or am I the only one who's noticed?


Last year's Pew poll shows that a majority of Catholics and Protestants are in favor of gay marriage: Link

It's quite possible to be Christian, to support gay marriage, to believe in evolution and a woman's right to choice all at the same time.

The Bible has a lot of messages, many in conflict with each other in various parts. You can choose to try to interpret it literally, to focus on the parts about intolerance and damnation, or to focus on the parts about love and acceptance.
 
2012-08-19 06:43:01 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Spiralmonkey: had98c: Why would any government consult a church official about gay marriage? It's not a religious issue, it's a civil one.

Civil union is already law, this is for religious ceremonies.

Um, no. No one is going to force churches to marry anyone. It's for legal marriage, with all the legal rights that entails. Civil unions are a poor substitute.

And the question remains - why the fark is a government contacting any religion for advice on the law?


You're right, no-one is forcing churches to perform ceremonies, but civil partners are entitled to the same property rights, the same exemptions on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits as married couples. They also have the same ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children as well as reasonable maintenance, tenancy rights, insurance and next-of-kin rights in hospital and with doctors. There is a process similar to divorce for dissolving a civil partnership.
 
2012-08-19 06:44:33 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Spiralmonkey: had98c: Why would any government consult a church official about gay marriage? It's not a religious issue, it's a civil one.

Civil union is already law, this is for religious ceremonies.

Um, no. No one is going to force churches to marry anyone. It's for legal marriage, with all the legal rights that entails. Civil unions are a poor substitute.

And the question remains - why the fark is a government contacting any religion for advice on the law?


So they can't whine that they weren't consulted. Instead they will just whine that they were consulted and ignored.
 
2012-08-19 06:45:18 PM
bocktherobber.com

Also, I can't wait for the next season of 'America's next top cardinal'!

/Feck! Arse! Drink!
//Not necessarily in that order
 
2012-08-19 06:52:06 PM

Spiralmonkey: Benevolent Misanthrope: Spiralmonkey: had98c: Why would any government consult a church official about gay marriage? It's not a religious issue, it's a civil one.

Civil union is already law, this is for religious ceremonies.

Um, no. No one is going to force churches to marry anyone. It's for legal marriage, with all the legal rights that entails. Civil unions are a poor substitute.

And the question remains - why the fark is a government contacting any religion for advice on the law?

You're right, no-one is forcing churches to perform ceremonies, but civil partners are entitled to the same property rights, the same exemptions on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits as married couples. They also have the same ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children as well as reasonable maintenance, tenancy rights, insurance and next-of-kin rights in hospital and with doctors. There is a process similar to divorce for dissolving a civil partnership.


And why shouldn't they be allowed to call themselves married like straight couples married in civil ceremonies are?
 
2012-08-19 06:52:42 PM

gaspode: Spiralmonkey:

Civil union is already law, this is for religious ceremonies.

No it bloody isnt, noone is even suggesting that. It is civil marriage that is being considered.

Also this is good news.. the more irrelevant these jokers make themselves the better.


From The Civil Partnership Guide for Gay and Lesbian Couples UK:


Differences between Civil Partnerships and Civil Marriages

Although a civil partnership is essentially viewed as a "gay marriage", between same sex partners, the reason it is not called a "gay marriage", is that there are a few differences between a partnership and a marriage on a technical level.

A civil partnership becomes legal when the registration certificate is signed by both partners. This does not mean that it must be signed during a ceremony that is public or during any specific event. This allows the partner to enter into the partnership on a private basis. There need be no words exchanged. During a civil marriage, typically words are exchanged and then the register is signed.

A vast difference between a civil partnership and a civil marriage is that a civil marriage almost always contains religious aspects during the marriage. The word marriage is a religious word in itself. Additionally, a clergy can perform civil marriages, whereas only specified registrars can perform a civil partnership.

There are also vast similarities between the two. In both a civil partnership and a civil marriage, the couples are required to give public notice of the intentions. The records of both are kept as official and public documents with the registry offices. Couples are required to wait a total of 15 days prior to registration but after giving notice of the partnership. After the 15 day waiting period the registration is given, and then it is valid for one full year after the date of registration.

What the above is saying is that essentially the difference is having a religious ceremony or not. I don't know what the difference is where you live, but here in Scotland, that's what it is.
 
2012-08-19 06:54:04 PM

Spiralmonkey: Benevolent Misanthrope: Spiralmonkey: had98c: Why would any government consult a church official about gay marriage? It's not a religious issue, it's a civil one.

Civil union is already law, this is for religious ceremonies.

Um, no. No one is going to force churches to marry anyone. It's for legal marriage, with all the legal rights that entails. Civil unions are a poor substitute.

And the question remains - why the fark is a government contacting any religion for advice on the law?

You're right, no-one is forcing churches to perform ceremonies, but civil partners are entitled to the same property rights, the same exemptions on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits as married couples. They also have the same ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children as well as reasonable maintenance, tenancy rights, insurance and next-of-kin rights in hospital and with doctors. There is a process similar to divorce for dissolving a civil partnership.


Interesting. Civil unions must work very, very differently in the UK. Here in the US, a civil union is far from a marriage in the legal rights it confers..
 
2012-08-19 06:56:13 PM

farkityfarker: Spiralmonkey: Benevolent Misanthrope: Spiralmonkey: had98c: Why would any government consult a church official about gay marriage? It's not a religious issue, it's a civil one.

Civil union is already law, this is for religious ceremonies.

Um, no. No one is going to force churches to marry anyone. It's for legal marriage, with all the legal rights that entails. Civil unions are a poor substitute.

And the question remains - why the fark is a government contacting any religion for advice on the law?

You're right, no-one is forcing churches to perform ceremonies, but civil partners are entitled to the same property rights, the same exemptions on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits as married couples. They also have the same ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children as well as reasonable maintenance, tenancy rights, insurance and next-of-kin rights in hospital and with doctors. There is a process similar to divorce for dissolving a civil partnership.

And why shouldn't they be allowed to call themselves married like straight couples married in civil ceremonies are?


I don't know, why shouldn't they? I'm not anti-gay marriage, in fact very much in favour of anyone being able to marry anyone else in whatever way they like.
 
2012-08-19 06:56:19 PM

TuteTibiImperes: It's quite possible to be Christian, to support gay marriage, to believe in evolution and a woman's right to choice all at the same time.

The Bible has a lot of messages, many in conflict with each other in various parts. You can choose to try to interpret it literally, to focus on the parts about intolerance and damnation, or to focus on the parts about love and acceptance.


So which parts of the Bible can I take literally, believe are metaphorical, give more emphasis to, or outright ignore and still call myself a Christian?
 
2012-08-19 06:58:46 PM

Charles Martel: Homosexuals want to get married in the Catholic Church? No they don't.


After my brothers wedding - the catholic priest come up to me and told me "you're next!". I said "great! we can do it right now! let me go get him!". He avoided me the rest of the reception.

/the guy he succeeded had a better sense of humour
//when did the Catholic church become such coonts anyways?
 
2012-08-19 06:58:48 PM
sharetv.org
 
2012-08-19 07:04:17 PM

gingerjet: Charles Martel: Homosexuals want to get married in the Catholic Church? No they don't.

After my brothers wedding - the catholic priest come up to me and told me "you're next!". I said "great! we can do it right now! let me go get him!". He avoided me the rest of the reception.

/the guy he succeeded had a better sense of humour
//when did the Catholic church become such coonts anyways?


18-1900 years ago or so.
 
2012-08-19 07:23:54 PM

valkore: TuteTibiImperes: It's quite possible to be Christian, to support gay marriage, to believe in evolution and a woman's right to choice all at the same time.

The Bible has a lot of messages, many in conflict with each other in various parts. You can choose to try to interpret it literally, to focus on the parts about intolerance and damnation, or to focus on the parts about love and acceptance.

So which parts of the Bible can I take literally, believe are metaphorical, give more emphasis to, or outright ignore and still call myself a Christian?


That's up to you and any (if any) particular religious organization you choose to join. We're talking about a book written thousands of years ago and translated, dictated, copied, troped, edited, embellished, and otherwise adulterated throughout generations of people with varying agendas throughout time. It's not unreasonable to assume that many of the details of the text we have today were not original, or are even relevant in today's world (like the dietary restrictions that made sense from a public health standpoint in ancient times, but aren't needed today).

There are also plenty of similarities in many of the stories in the Bible to those found in other religions. The details about the appearance, names, numbers or logistical concerns of your deities aside most religions have core beliefs that boil down to being good to your fellow man, helping the less fortunate, living by a code of morality that benefits society at large and showing appreciate for the gift of creation.

Personally, I do believe in God, but I also believe in the big bang, in evolution, that there is life on other worlds, and that following a strict set of rules written by some ancient priests in the middle east isn't necessary for salvation. We have plenty of theories on how the universe began, but more questions than answers about what caused it to exist in the first place, as well as what created the actual spark of life. I believe that Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Zoroastrians, etc, all share the same God and that different groups over time have created different ways to depict him and his aspects, and have had various leaders, scribes, etc that have added their own bits over time leading to plenty of divergences in the details, but not in the core concepts of most religions.

Then again, that's just me, I'm not out to convert anyone or try to change government policy in the name of religion. Believe what you want, don't believe what you want, at the end of the day that's your own choice.
 
2012-08-19 07:37:52 PM

Spiralmonkey: What the above is saying is that essentially the difference is having a religious ceremony or not. I don't know what the difference is where you live, but here in Scotland, that's what it is.


In the US - marriage is a civil contract. Individuals are licensed to be able to execute that contract which includes ship captains, notary publics, judges, and, of course priests, of religious orders. In many states - you can pick up a license, go to a judge, and file the paperwork all on the same day and viola - you're married.

In the end - all that matters is that the proper paperwork is filed. Until that happened - no matter who married you or how elaborate your ceremony is - you aren't married in the eyes of the state.

/my brother was married by a star fleet captain in Vegas.
 
2012-08-19 07:49:00 PM

valkore: TuteTibiImperes: It's quite possible to be Christian, to support gay marriage, to believe in evolution and a woman's right to choice all at the same time.

The Bible has a lot of messages, many in conflict with each other in various parts. You can choose to try to interpret it literally, to focus on the parts about intolerance and damnation, or to focus on the parts about love and acceptance.

So which parts of the Bible any religion's official text can I take literally, believe are metaphorical, give more emphasis to, or outright ignore and still call myself a Christian person of that religion?


FTFY
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report