Skip to content
 
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.

(AP News)   "When it comes to same-sex marriages, it's time for all of us to lighten up." --Francis   (apnews.com) divider line
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

3727 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 21 Oct 2020 at 11:09 AM (13 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



222 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-10-21 10:59:52 AM  
i.ytimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 11:03:37 AM  
It's a start in the right direction. Still a lot of work to do, but it's a start
 
2020-10-21 11:08:59 AM  
Conservative Catholics:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 11:10:59 AM  
Just like the Spanish Inquisition. No one expected it.
 
2020-10-21 11:11:20 AM  
The Catholic leadership are so going to have him assassinated. Damn shame
 
2020-10-21 11:11:33 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

It's not at odds with the teachings of Jesus, that's for sure.  Now the old testament, well that's another story.
 
2020-10-21 11:11:53 AM  
Was not expecting that.
 
2020-10-21 11:12:35 AM  

EL EM: Just like the Spanish Inquisition. No one expected it.


Quite Interesting - Spanish Inquisition
Youtube o85NK1EEnMY
 
2020-10-21 11:12:36 AM  
Isn't this just an extension of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" bollocks?
 
2020-10-21 11:12:43 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 11:13:05 AM  
This is a great step forward, in the "Organized religion gets graded on a curve" sort of way.
 
2020-10-21 11:13:27 AM  
The other thread should have gotten green, but to repeat.

What do you call a Catholic who disagrees with the Pope?


Protestant
 
2020-10-21 11:13:48 AM  
Well since the office of the papacy is protected by infallibility, meaning it's not possible for the Pope to authoritatively pronounce a teaching that is untrue, does this mean if Catholics disagree, they will be forced to believe they will burn in hell?  Please tell me it does.
 
2020-10-21 11:15:06 AM  
"Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God," Francis said in one of his sit-down interviews for the film. "What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered."

So separate but equal.
 
2020-10-21 11:15:14 AM  
"Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God," Francis said

Holy fark! An acknowledgement that homosexual people are....people?


"What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered."

Damn it. So close. What we have to have is equality. If you are supporting a division between "marriage" and "civil union", you are saying the two are not equal. Now in your religious fantasy world, I'm fine with that. In our legal reality, it simply doesn't work. Still, I'll take this as a step in the right direction.
 
2020-10-21 11:15:20 AM  

EL EM: Just like the Spanish Inquisition. No one expected it.


And the comfy chair!
 
2020-10-21 11:15:53 AM  
Not marriages. Of course not.

The PR Pope here is advocating on behalf of OTHER governments to create laws that relegate gay people to separate-but-equal "civil unions."

He won't make these laws in the Vatican, of course. Even though it's entirely in his power. Nope.

And he also now claims he "stood up for" civil unions when he lived in Argentina.

Which is a lie.

He was a vocal opponent of marriage equality in Argentina, in pretty offensive terms. There are some who claim that he privately said he was okay with separate-but-equal.

That is not "standing up for X."

Francis is a fraud. Don't be suckered.
 
2020-10-21 11:16:41 AM  

jfivealive: Well since the office of the papacy is protected by infallibility, meaning it's not possible for the Pope to authoritatively pronounce a teaching that is untrue, does this mean if Catholics disagree, they will be forced to believe they will burn in hell?  Please tell me it does.


More or less.
but like all large enough religions, Catholics are no more in one unified lockstep religious practices belief than Jews are.
 
2020-10-21 11:17:02 AM  

minnesotaboy: The Catholic leadership are so going to have him assassinated. Damn shame


Yeah, the last thing a lot of senior clergy want is their tops suing them for alimony.
 
2020-10-21 11:17:35 AM  
He's still against birth control I think. I wonder if it is ok for lesbians to use condoms.
 
2020-10-21 11:17:53 AM  
The article only refers to him endorsing civil unions and not same-sex marriages which is more separate but equal nonsense. I understand he can only try to change the church so much, but there's a difference between civil unions and marriages that's still rooted in bigotry.
 
2020-10-21 11:18:08 AM  

ukexpat: Isn't this just an extension of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" bollocks?


No, this is a recognition that their love should be recognized by law. Which is a lot different than loving the sinner hating the sin.
 
2020-10-21 11:18:49 AM  
American Catholics will be particularly angry.
 
2020-10-21 11:18:53 AM  

Gaddiel: EL EM: Just like the Spanish Inquisition. No one expected it.

[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/o85NK1EE​nMY?autoplay=1&widget_referrer=https%3​A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&start=0&enablejsap​i=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&​widgetid=1]


I expect it has a more "now" name, like "INQWIZ" or some other pharmaceutical-sounding moniker
 
2020-10-21 11:19:15 AM  
"What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered."

This old argument again? "You can have the benefits of marriage but don't you dare call it 'marriage!'" The hubris endemic to any organization which claims a monopoly over the definition of marriage is staggering. I guess we should also revoke the marriages and issue 'civil union certificates' for all straight atheist couples? Or all non-catholic couples?

They need to get over themselves. Any such 'separate but equal' type arguments reveal them for what they truly are.
 
2020-10-21 11:19:37 AM  

tekmo: Not marriages. Of course not.

The PR Pope here is advocating on behalf of OTHER governments to create laws that relegate gay people to separate-but-equal "civil unions."

He won't make these laws in the Vatican, of course. Even though it's entirely in his power. Nope.

And he also now claims he "stood up for" civil unions when he lived in Argentina.

Which is a lie.

He was a vocal opponent of marriage equality in Argentina, in pretty offensive terms. There are some who claim that he privately said he was okay with separate-but-equal.

That is not "standing up for X."

Francis is a fraud. Don't be suckered.


Dude, this is the Pope.

Baby steps.
 
2020-10-21 11:19:45 AM  

fiddlehead: "Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God," Francis said in one of his sit-down interviews for the film. "What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered."

So separate but equal.


Yes, but still a step forward from they should all burn in hell! Sinners!
 
2020-10-21 11:19:53 AM  

jfivealive: Well since the office of the papacy is protected by infallibility, meaning it's not possible for the Pope to authoritatively pronounce a teaching that is untrue, does this mean if Catholics disagree, they will be forced to believe they will burn in hell?  Please tell me it does.


Yeah that's not the definition of Papal Infallibilty. P.I. involves a true, formal pronouncement Ex Cathedra and is generally limited to dogmatic questions only. It's only happened twice. Nothing he's said is out of line with what Catholics believe- another poster said so, but its a rehash of hate sin/love sinner, but Francis makes the case in a positive way (give them something) vs the negative reaction of ban everything.
 
2020-10-21 11:20:04 AM  
Still doesn't make up for aiding and abetting hundreds (thousands?) of child rapists.
 
2020-10-21 11:20:59 AM  

Two16: [Fark user image 600x380]


she and catholics like her already think the pope is a fake pope or doesn't count or something
 
2020-10-21 11:21:06 AM  

eKonk: Damn it. So close. What we have to have is equality. If you are supporting a division between "marriage" and "civil union", you are saying the two are not equal. Now in your religious fantasy world, I'm fine with that. In our legal reality, it simply doesn't work. Still, I'll take this as a step in the right direction.


I think the reality is that's the closest we'll get.
I think it's a lot smarter for us to just take religion out of marriages wholeheartedly.
Stop associating the bond of two people in matrimony in the modern world with regressive, bronze age philosophies. Especially when the act of marriage, for centuries has been for entirely civil reasons and -not- for religious reasons.
Just another case of the church worming its way into stuff for it's own influence.
 
2020-10-21 11:21:21 AM  
FTFA: Cruz, who is gay, said that during his first meetings with the pope in May 2018, Francis assured him that God made Cruz gay.

I knew Cruz was gay.
 
2020-10-21 11:21:26 AM  

Begoggle: American Catholics will be particularly angry.


If you want to make heads spin, remind them that a previous Pope declared "Americanism" to be heresy.
 
2020-10-21 11:21:43 AM  
the only person who has the power to make homosexuals a problem for you, is you yourself.

otherwise there is no effect on your life at all.
 
2020-10-21 11:21:51 AM  

Farker Soze: He's still against birth control I think. I wonder if it is ok for lesbians to use condoms.


Dental damns!
 
2020-10-21 11:21:54 AM  

eKonk: "Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God," Francis said

Holy fark! An acknowledgement that homosexual people are....people?


"What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered."

Damn it. So close. What we have to have is equality. If you are supporting a division between "marriage" and "civil union", you are saying the two are not equal. Now in your religious fantasy world, I'm fine with that. In our legal reality, it simply doesn't work. Still, I'll take this as a step in the right direction.


I don't think the Church would make a distinction between a legal marriage and a legal civil union.  Legally, they're pretty much the same thing.  I think the distinction is that he doesn't want people thinking he's okaying Holy Matrimony, the religious sacrament, for LGBT people.

I mean it's at least a step in the right direction so I'll cheer it on with half-hearted enthusiasm.  One thing it might open the door for is the Church being fully accepting of Catholic gays adopting, and that is a pretty significant step.
 
2020-10-21 11:22:06 AM  
Catholics have generally been for civil unions instead of marriage for a while. It is cone down to a basically really stupid argument of the semantics of calling it marriage. The difference between civil union and marriage varies by country due to different local legal definitions. But when you support it in the abstract, across many nations, like the pope is doing here, you are basically accepting definitions of civil unions that may be indistinguishable from
marriage in anything but name. The Church knows that they've pretty much lost the debate on this issue, so now they are basically trying to settle for a dumb victory on the terminology.
 
2020-10-21 11:22:08 AM  

PanicAttack: The article only refers to him endorsing civil unions and not same-sex marriages which is more separate but equal nonsense. I understand he can only try to change the church so much, but there's a difference between civil unions and marriages that's still rooted in bigotry.


I see it as the next step in making "marriage" meaningless as a legal term, which I'm all for.
 
2020-10-21 11:22:36 AM  
Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."
 
2020-10-21 11:23:41 AM  

madgonad: tekmo: Not marriages. Of course not.

The PR Pope here is advocating on behalf of OTHER governments to create laws that relegate gay people to separate-but-equal "civil unions."

He won't make these laws in the Vatican, of course. Even though it's entirely in his power. Nope.

And he also now claims he "stood up for" civil unions when he lived in Argentina.

Which is a lie.

He was a vocal opponent of marriage equality in Argentina, in pretty offensive terms. There are some who claim that he privately said he was okay with separate-but-equal.

That is not "standing up for X."

Francis is a fraud. Don't be suckered.

Dude, this is the Pope.

Baby steps.


I thought he was the minister of funny hats?
 
2020-10-21 11:24:49 AM  

Farker Soze: He's still against birth control I think. I wonder if it is ok for lesbians to use condoms.


I wonder how they would use them.
 
2020-10-21 11:26:27 AM  
We should stop recognizing religious weddings because it's all bullshiat.
 
2020-10-21 11:26:43 AM  
Well I guess Kim Davis, Liberty Counsel, Huckabee, Mat Staver, and Papal Nuncio Archbishop Vigano are all so happy that their concocted hijacking of  the Finale of  Francis' visit to America with a "private audience" worked out so well -- but not to their aggressive manipulative tastes.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 11:26:44 AM  

punkwrestler: Farker Soze: He's still against birth control I think. I wonder if it is ok for lesbians to use condoms.

Dental damns!


Are you swearing at my teeth?  Well, ankle damn to you, buddy.
 
2020-10-21 11:26:52 AM  

whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."


I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.
 
2020-10-21 11:26:52 AM  

Knight without armor: FTFA: Cruz, who is gay, said that during his first meetings with the pope in May 2018, Francis assured him that God made Cruz gay.

I knew Cruz was gay.


Is that why he became the zodiac Killer or was he just following the path after his father killed JFK?
 
2020-10-21 11:26:58 AM  

PvtStash: jfivealive: Well since the office of the papacy is protected by infallibility, meaning it's not possible for the Pope to authoritatively pronounce a teaching that is untrue, does this mean if Catholics disagree, they will be forced to believe they will burn in hell?  Please tell me it does.

More or less.
but like all large enough religions, Catholics are no more in one unified lockstep religious practices belief than Jews are.


Catholics have a defined leadership structure, at least - The Pope is Boss of All Catholics (so you'll need to get the silver arrow to beat him), and there is no analog in Judaism (not in any major strain I'm aware of*).

There is a single Catholic doctrine that flows from the Vatican (although I suppose this dictum, like the results of Vatican II, will be ignored by the fundies**) - Jews can't even agree on whether or not the Talmud is controlling, and that was edited specifically to be a single-source 1500 years ago!

So I think I agree with your point, but I see it more like convergent evolution - we did not arrive at this place through the same processes or motivations.

// the Talmud, even if you smash together the two different versions (and can reconcile the contradictions, as many have), doesn't cover the entirety of law
* there are local "Chief Rabbis", but those are political/ceremonial titles (as in the UK and Israel), not religious
** in terms of adherence to doctrine, I'd agree that most lay Jews and Catholics share the cafeteria mindset
 
2020-10-21 11:27:53 AM  

Minus1Kelvin: Still doesn't make up for aiding and abetting hundreds (thousands?) of child rapists.


Just a friendly reminder.  I still farking hate your Fark profile picture on mobile. I still stupidly try to wipe away the hair off my phone
 
2020-10-21 11:29:14 AM  
I wish to nominate this headline as a candidate for Fark's Headline of the YearTM
 
2020-10-21 11:29:18 AM  

nekom: [Fark user image 257x196]
It's not at odds with the teachings of Jesus, that's for sure.  Now the old testament, well that's another story.


Yes, it is another story.

Like David and Jonathan.  Purely platonic.
 
2020-10-21 11:30:22 AM  
Ah trying to keep the church relevant.  He's seen the assignment shift in younger demographics either not caring if people who love eachother getting married or outright support it.

How are you going to keep people in the church, and by extension keep them paying into the church if they refuse to join or stay due to their outright refusal to get with the times?

This isn't some grand gesture because he cares.  This is an attempt to keep the spice (cash) flowing by making them seem inclusive while not actually doing any of it.

It's purely a PR move.   Younger generations are all in, but even amongst older populations it is still at 60+% approval rating.

So as the older generations die off we're looking at a huge amount of support amongst younger generations and they're not going to stay in or join a church that is outright hostile to it.  This is them attempting to stay relevant/functioning and not actually caring.  If the shift hadn't happened he'd still be against it.
 
2020-10-21 11:30:24 AM  

ukexpat: Isn't this just an extension of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" bollocks?


Not really, which is why it's sort of a big deal, even though it's not "standing up for people" the way some are portraying it. "Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God" is a rebuke to those in the church who say that being gay is turning your back on God and subsequently, that you shouldn't be treated as part of the "family" with God's other children. Arguing that they have the right to be part of a legally recognized family is a huge leap forward... it's also important to note that the Catholic church still views religious marriage as a religious institution, and government marriage as an entirely separate thing, of the same name. Lots of Catholics would be fine if you said only churches can do marriage, and governments can only do civil unions. They don't care much for the idea of governments doing "marriage" at all, so them saying that governments should do civil unions for gay people is about as far as that's going to go, in terms of church doctrine... as most of them think the government should also simply do civil unions for straight people too.

TLDR, this is actually a pretty big deal, but people are misreading it in about a thousand directions.
 
2020-10-21 11:30:25 AM  
I've never understood the problem with civil unions anyway.  Calling something a marriage doesn't provide any added benefit.

And it's not like the definition of the word was ambiguous.  Man, woman, ceremony whole nine yards.

This is like the ONE aspect of society where the gay community wants to be just like breeders.
 
2020-10-21 11:31:51 AM  

fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.


Gay atheists get married too, though.  "Civil Union" is akin to "separate but equal."
 
2020-10-21 11:32:11 AM  
If you wanted to support civil unions, the time was 1995 +/- 5 years.

Instead, the churches, including the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, spent much of that era lobbying for DOMA and state constitutional amendments that specifically barred "anything like marriage".

You don't get to come back from that and say, "hey, wouldn't civil unions be good enough?"
 
2020-10-21 11:32:34 AM  

fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.


There are no other accepted religions, from what I learned when I was a Catholic if you aren't Catholic, you're wrong and going to hell!
 
2020-10-21 11:33:11 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

dedicated to the bible thumpers and theologians of each and every religion that condemn homosexuality / same sex marriage.

Why do you care so much about what consenting adults do, who they love? it's godamned (pardon the pun) 2020, and the ass end of it at that. Let it go. Let it go already.
 
2020-10-21 11:33:22 AM  
He's not for same-sex marriage, he's for same-sex civil unions. So f*ck you Francis and fix your headline subby.
 
2020-10-21 11:33:52 AM  
"Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God," Francis said in one of his sit-down interviews for the film.

Now what the f*cking F*CK is so hard about this to understand?
 
2020-10-21 11:33:53 AM  

fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.


Pretty much any Christians can be married in the Catholic Church, as long as one is Catholic.  They may need to get the okay from the local Bishop's office, but that's it really.  Now, there is some distinction between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christianity - For Orthodox (Eastern, Greek, Russian, Coptic, etc.) you can have a Mass service for Holy Matrimony just like any two Catholics, whereas non-Orthodox Christians (Protestants, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, etc.) you probably won't have a Mass, just a Holy Matrimony service.
 
2020-10-21 11:34:02 AM  

GrizzlyPouch: I've never understood the problem with civil unions anyway.  Calling something a marriage doesn't provide any added benefit.

And it's not like the definition of the word was ambiguous.  Man, woman, ceremony whole nine yards.

This is like the ONE aspect of society where the gay community wants to be just like breeders.


Are you ever right about anything?

Can't throw the criminal President under the bus,   can't admit gays are people like straights are.

What good are you?  You don't promote any healthy discussion about any issue.
 
2020-10-21 11:34:21 AM  
All of you Catholics that wish to disagree with your holy crusader leader, please do.
Go all the way.
Just wear condoms when you do.

You don't need to breed more Catholics for him to force tithing guilt upon.
Hit him where it hurts, the gold bank.
Stop making donors.

Your dinner table will thank me.
 
2020-10-21 11:34:26 AM  

TuckFrump: It's a start in the right direction. Still a lot of work to do, but it's a start


pbs.twimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 11:34:29 AM  

jfivealive: Well since the office of the papacy is protected by infallibility, meaning it's not possible for the Pope to authoritatively pronounce a teaching that is untrue, does this mean if Catholics disagree, they will be forced to believe they will burn in hell?  Please tell me it does.


Catholics don't hold that the Pope is infallible, just that he can speak infallibly on specific matters of faith that cannot be determined by Cannon lawyers and may otherwise split the Church.  Matters with no practical importance like the immaculate conception of Mary.

This is not what Francis has done.
 
2020-10-21 11:34:30 AM  

tekmo: Not marriages. Of course not.


You... are aware he's the Pope, right?

He's saying that same-sex unions (marriage) should be legal. But same sex marriage (the catholic sacrament) should not be allowed within the Catholic Church.
 
2020-10-21 11:34:48 AM  
Typhoid Amy due to stroke out in 10 ... 9 ... 8 ... 7

(I've never bought the religious part of Typhoid Amy. She's all Pharisee. Abortion is her "beard" issue to let her slip making the rich richer part into the books.)
 
2020-10-21 11:35:12 AM  
So, speaking from a place of having Catholic priest relatives:

Dogma is slow to change. But it changes.
 
2020-10-21 11:35:19 AM  

jfivealive: Well since the office of the papacy is protected by infallibility, meaning it's not possible for the Pope to authoritatively pronounce a teaching that is untrue, does this mean if Catholics disagree, they will be forced to believe they will burn in hell?  Please tell me it does.


There are fairly strict limits on when papal infallibility is applicable, and it must be tied to existing doctrine (IE the Bible).  The Pope saying "I think X is a good idea" is definitely not one of those times.
 
2020-10-21 11:36:10 AM  

fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.


don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.
 
2020-10-21 11:38:17 AM  

severedtoe: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.


Which bit?
 
2020-10-21 11:39:40 AM  

Dr Dreidel: PvtStash: jfivealive: Well since the office of the papacy is protected by infallibility, meaning it's not possible for the Pope to authoritatively pronounce a teaching that is untrue, does this mean if Catholics disagree, they will be forced to believe they will burn in hell?  Please tell me it does.

More or less.
but like all large enough religions, Catholics are no more in one unified lockstep religious practices belief than Jews are.

Catholics have a defined leadership structure, at least - The Pope is Boss of All Catholics (so you'll need to get the silver arrow to beat him), and there is no analog in Judaism (not in any major strain I'm aware of*).

There is a single Catholic doctrine that flows from the Vatican (although I suppose this dictum, like the results of Vatican II, will be ignored by the fundies**) - Jews can't even agree on whether or not the Talmud is controlling, and that was edited specifically to be a single-source 1500 years ago!

So I think I agree with your point, but I see it more like convergent evolution - we did not arrive at this place through the same processes or motivations.

// the Talmud, even if you smash together the two different versions (and can reconcile the contradictions, as many have), doesn't cover the entirety of law
* there are local "Chief Rabbis", but those are political/ceremonial titles (as in the UK and Israel), not religious
** in terms of adherence to doctrine, I'd agree that most lay Jews and Catholics share the cafeteria mindset


Catholics do enjoy the occasional second or third pope all "ruling" at the same time however.   They've been know to even dig up the corpse of an earlier pope and try him for heresy.
 
2020-10-21 11:39:54 AM  

eKonk: "Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God," Francis said

Holy fark! An acknowledgement that homosexual people are....people?


"What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered."

Damn it. So close. What we have to have is equality. If you are supporting a division between "marriage" and "civil union", you are saying the two are not equal. Now in your religious fantasy world, I'm fine with that. In our legal reality, it simply doesn't work. Still, I'll take this as a step in the right direction.


Raised catholic, turned away at the confirmation part. Big fan of Fran, although not enough to go back (they do better than lots of organized religion, especially under Fran, but man they still got a way to go, even if you assume there won't be a turn back to the contagious ACB flavor of catholic after Franny).

But for them, mahwidge is exclusively the domain of the church. I am not married in the eyes of the pope, because we just went to the court house. For someone looking at things through that lens, I am reasonably sure he is not really calling for a separate civil institution for same sex couples, it is really just drawing the line against getting mahwied in the church.

Of course, the "charismatic" crowd will definitely take this as a call for second tier status, or outright evidence that this is an imposter pope that trumpolini is secretly battling to the death, and Joey Ratz is still the real pope he is just drugged so the (((imposter))) can use the homogay agenda to destroy America and the church.
 
2020-10-21 11:40:25 AM  

TuckFrump: It's a start in the right direction. Still a lot of work to do, but it's a start


Isn't it weird how every time money dries up, God changes his mind about a sin?
 
2020-10-21 11:40:31 AM  

Gaddiel: EL EM: Just like the Spanish Inquisition. No one expected it.

[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/o85NK1EE​nMY]


Holy shiat! Francis was in charge of the Spanish Inquisition?!? Who expected that???
 
2020-10-21 11:41:07 AM  

KB202: TuckFrump: It's a start in the right direction. Still a lot of work to do, but it's a start

Isn't it weird how every time money dries up, God changes his mind about a sin?


Yes, that's a "Thing" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulge​n​ce
 
2020-10-21 11:41:10 AM  

severedtoe: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.


I wonder if Catholic small business owners who refuse to serve gay couples also refuse to serve people getting remarried.
 
2020-10-21 11:41:14 AM  

EL EM: Just like the Spanish Inquisition. No one expected it.


But what a show, eh?
 
2020-10-21 11:41:19 AM  

severedtoe: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.


That's not exactly true either.  Annulments aren't common but they aren't exactly rare either.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/pri​n​t-edition/what-are-grounds-for-annulme​nt *

*Turns out I was wrong about the Orthodox comment above, still need a dispensation from the Bishop
 
2020-10-21 11:44:23 AM  

Advernaut: We should stop recognizing religious weddings because it's all bullshiat.


That would be the rational way forward. Imaging basing a person's age of majority on a church sacrament.
 
2020-10-21 11:44:28 AM  

Farker Soze: He's still against birth control I think. I wonder if it is ok for lesbians to use condoms.


They made progress on birth control, I think sex workers and at risk folks have permission now.

Super absurd that they have a policy on whether sex workers can, almost as absurd as the thought that sex workers would give a fark what the pope says (except when he is the client).
 
2020-10-21 11:46:47 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 11:52:00 AM  

nemisonic: Gaddiel: EL EM: Just like the Spanish Inquisition. No one expected it.

[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/o85NK1EE​nMY]

Holy shiat! Francis was in charge of the Spanish Inquisition?!? Who expected that???


Actually the clip is a bit dated. It was Ratzinger, or Pope Benedict XVI, which we all kind of expected.
 
2020-10-21 11:54:00 AM  

whidbey: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

Gay atheists get married too, though.  "Civil Union" is akin to "separate but equal."


Not in the eyes of the church (unless those rules changed since I was a kid)... It doesn't count unless a priest signed off on it.
 
2020-10-21 11:54:29 AM  

Adam64: [Fark user image 425x318]
[Fark user image 425x318]


"I've done everything the bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!"
 
2020-10-21 11:54:37 AM  

Tomahawk513: severedtoe: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.

That's not exactly true either.  Annulments aren't common but they aren't exactly rare either.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/prin​t-edition/what-are-grounds-for-annulme​nt *

*Turns out I was wrong about the Orthodox comment above, still need a dispensation from the Bishop


yeah, and that's what the bishops are all about these days...  its rare, and typically reserved for those with special circumstances or personal relations with the clergy.
 
2020-10-21 11:54:43 AM  

GrizzlyPouch: I've never understood the problem with civil unions anyway.  Calling something a marriage doesn't provide any added benefit.

And it's not like the definition of the word was ambiguous.  Man, woman, ceremony whole nine yards.

This is like the ONE aspect of society where the gay community wants to be just like breeders.


That's not true. See Sweatt v. Painter: marriage has "rich traditions and prestige" in society, while civil unions were created specifically as a separate-but-equal compromise and have been disparaged as "not real marriages".  The very fact that people like you argue that civil unions, rather than marriage, should be good enough supports a conclusion that marriage and civil unions are distinct. To quote the Supreme Court, "It is difficult to believe that one who had a free choice between these [institutions] would consider the question close."
 
2020-10-21 11:56:26 AM  
A few years back when the US supreme court made gay marriage legal, a former friend (the one who has gone completely far right wing) was flipping out and having a total melt down. I told him to relax, it is not going to affect him in the least. To which he replied "well, how would you like having them live next door to you!!!". My reply was "It's like living next door to tall people, it is not going to make me taller."
 
2020-10-21 11:57:06 AM  

GrizzlyPouch: I've never understood the problem with civil unions anyway.  Calling something a marriage doesn't provide any added benefit.

And it's not like the definition of the word was ambiguous.  Man, woman, ceremony whole nine yards.

This is like the ONE aspect of society where the gay community wants to be just like breeders.


From what I remember, the religious right pushed back when civil unions were offered as a compromise.
 
2020-10-21 11:57:07 AM  

eKonk: Damn it. So close. What we have to have is equality.


Equality is incompatible with the basic premise of religion. If superior beings exist, then inferior beings must exist. By definition, a religious person actively denies the concept of equality, and not just once on the day they get baptized, but in every waking moment.
 
2020-10-21 11:58:19 AM  

fiddlehead: severedtoe: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.

I wonder if Catholic small business owners who refuse to serve gay couples also refuse to serve people getting remarried.


not a problem unless they eat meat on Friday.
 
2020-10-21 11:59:55 AM  

Tomahawk513: severedtoe: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.

That's not exactly true either.  Annulments aren't common but they aren't exactly rare either.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/prin​t-edition/what-are-grounds-for-annulme​nt *

*Turns out I was wrong about the Orthodox comment above, still need a dispensation from the Bishop


CSB, my grandma got an annulment (effectively a pronouncement that it never happened) after 17 years and 8 kids! And that was 50ish years ago. Not as hard to get as they say it is...
 
2020-10-21 12:00:13 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 12:01:14 PM  

Rev.K: I wish to nominate this headline as a candidate for Fark's Headline of the YearTM


While it is a great headline... ;Frankie Goes to Hollywood' was right there for the taking, as well.
 
2020-10-21 12:01:40 PM  

Drank_the_40_water: Tomahawk513: severedtoe: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.

That's not exactly true either.  Annulments aren't common but they aren't exactly rare either.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/prin​t-edition/what-are-grounds-for-annulme​nt *

*Turns out I was wrong about the Orthodox comment above, still need a dispensation from the Bishop

CSB, my grandma got an annulment (effectively a pronouncement that it never happened) after 17 years and 8 kids! And that was 50ish years ago. Not as hard to get as they say it is...


My uncle got one, but they had to buy the Monsignor a station wagon first.
 
2020-10-21 12:02:37 PM  

Theaetetus: GrizzlyPouch: I've never understood the problem with civil unions anyway.  Calling something a marriage doesn't provide any added benefit.

And it's not like the definition of the word was ambiguous.  Man, woman, ceremony whole nine yards.

This is like the ONE aspect of society where the gay community wants to be just like breeders.

That's not true. See Sweatt v. Painter: marriage has "rich traditions and prestige" in society, while civil unions were created specifically as a separate-but-equal compromise and have been disparaged as "not real marriages".  The very fact that people like you argue that civil unions, rather than marriage, should be good enough supports a conclusion that marriage and civil unions are distinct. To quote the Supreme Court, "It is difficult to believe that one who had a free choice between these [institutions] would consider the question close."


Yes.   I think all marriages should be "civil" unions, then if you want to get married in a church, you can have a "Blessing of Civil Marriage".   Which we did.   Went to the county clerk, got civil marriaged, then later had an Episcopalian "Blessing", which for all intents and purposes was just like a wedding (which made my grandmother very, very happy...she got to see her oldest grandchild finally walk down the aisle, in a "wedding" dress, though not white.)

I was raised feral Catholic, but as my husband to be was divorced...we went to his Episcopalian roots, which was fine, got my bells and smells and a female priest to boot!
 
2020-10-21 12:03:41 PM  

Drank_the_40_water: whidbey: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

Gay atheists get married too, though.  "Civil Union" is akin to "separate but equal."

Not in the eyes of the church (unless those rules changed since I was a kid)... It doesn't count unless a priest signed off on it.


The point is marriage is not "reserved" for Catholics.   That's a flat out bigoted statement right there.
 
2020-10-21 12:06:41 PM  

Drank_the_40_water: Tomahawk513: severedtoe: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.

That's not exactly true either.  Annulments aren't common but they aren't exactly rare either.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/prin​t-edition/what-are-grounds-for-annulme​nt *

*Turns out I was wrong about the Orthodox comment above, still need a dispensation from the Bishop

CSB, my grandma got an annulment (effectively a pronouncement that it never happened) after 17 years and 8 kids! And that was 50ish years ago. Not as hard to get as they say it is...


Depends on your area, how large the local parish is, your social standing, and how well you know your bishop.

I know a lady whose husband was literally stealing from the church which got him kicked out and the bishop wouldn't allow annul her marriage...  so she got a divorce.... and he died right after the proceedings.

She is still diehard and still goes to mass, but isn't allowed to take communion.

shiat's wild.

If anyone did something like that to me it would make me question my willingness to be a part of what they believe in.

But there's a reason I'm agnostic.
 
2020-10-21 12:07:22 PM  

whidbey: Drank_the_40_water: whidbey: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

Gay atheists get married too, though.  "Civil Union" is akin to "separate but equal."

Not in the eyes of the church (unless those rules changed since I was a kid)... It doesn't count unless a priest signed off on it.

The point is marriage is not "reserved" for Catholics.   That's a flat out bigoted statement right there.


Meh, don't tell me, tell them. Read up where I say I specifically, consciously declined to be confirmed... I am just translating catholic to lay person as a public service, I don't agree with huge swaths of their shiat.
 
2020-10-21 12:10:24 PM  

GrizzlyPouch: I've never understood the problem with civil unions anyway.  Calling something a marriage doesn't provide any added benefit.

And it's not like the definition of the word was ambiguous.  Man, woman, ceremony whole nine yards.

This is like the ONE aspect of society where the gay community wants to be just like breeders.


Actually, it does.  A few years back one of the profs at my work had a massive heart attack in class- he was in an induced coma for a month and in the hospital far longer.

His husband walked into the hospital and had immediate visitation rights, because the spouse always does and trying to stop it is an instant losing lawsuit for a hospital.  For a civil union?  Good guess, but we're in Trumplandia here.  The gay woman who works for me ran out and got married hours after it became legal here- you don't do that if a civil union is the same thing.

The word matters
 
2020-10-21 12:13:12 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

Pope, painted in 1824  when he was standing in Ireland under the name "The Sligo Waxy."
 
2020-10-21 12:15:39 PM  

TuckFrump: It's a start in the right direction. Still a lot of work to do, but it's a start


Yeah, but this being Fark, the all-or-nothing brigade will chime in soon and tell you how EVERYTHING has to be done NOW, or it just doesn't count.

I agree, it's a step in the right direction, and it's going to be a long journey. But good on Francis.
 
2020-10-21 12:16:19 PM  

Dewey Fidalgo: Yes.   I think all marriages should be "civil" unions, then if you want to get married in a church, you can have a "Blessing of Civil Marriage".


I think this is a fine idea, but let's call the civil institution "marriage" and the religious institution "wedlock". Like it is now and has been for over a thousand years.

Interestingly, if you look into the etymology of the language, the church institution of matrimony is different from the institution of marriage: they descend from different Latin words, specifically mater and -monium (mother and condition), and maritare (to have a husband). Matrimony actually seems, from its derivation, to be the state of motherhood, wed or unwed.
 
2020-10-21 12:21:33 PM  

Mikey1969: TuckFrump: It's a start in the right direction. Still a lot of work to do, but it's a start

Yeah, but this being Fark, the all-or-nothing brigade will chime in soon and tell you how EVERYTHING has to be done NOW, or it just doesn't count.

I agree, it's a step in the right direction, and it's going to be a long journey. But good on Francis.


It's not that hard.  We shouldn't be needing to take steps at all.  It's 2020, people are having to take steps because they are following text (despite gay people not really being in said text) from a time when their knowledge of science was about kindergarten level now and thought illnesses were ghosts/the devil being in you and praying it out was the only cure.

How hard is that to understand?  We shouldn't need "steps" we shouldn't expect this to take a long time.

This is like the farking dred Scott argument.

"Can't they just be happy that we had to go to war to free them?  Now they want to be treated like.... humans?  Com'on now, thats a lot to ask.  Baby steps here."
 
2020-10-21 12:22:43 PM  
So anyone want to make a bet that Frances will go the way of JP1?
 
2020-10-21 12:23:43 PM  

punkwrestler: Farker Soze: He's still against birth control I think. I wonder if it is ok for lesbians to use condoms.

Dental damns!


LISA NEEDS BRACES!
 
2020-10-21 12:24:43 PM  
Welcome to Obama's America.
 
2020-10-21 12:25:47 PM  

madgonad: Dude, this is the Pope.


I noticed.

That's why it's entirely reasonable to expect him to do better than espousing continued bigotry as a matter of law against the neighbors his own farking messiah commanded him to love without qualification.
 
2020-10-21 12:26:34 PM  
The American Catholics faction are going to shiat all over themselves.  This is bigger than abortion.
 
2020-10-21 12:34:49 PM  

MIRV888: The American Catholics faction are going to shiat all over themselves.  This is bigger than abortion.


Perhaps they should work with Big Pharma to take care of their incontinence or admit that they have a fetish.

They say confession is good for the so--oh wait, they probably don't have one between the whole lot.
 
2020-10-21 12:35:43 PM  

Drank_the_40_water: whidbey: Drank_the_40_water: whidbey: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

Gay atheists get married too, though.  "Civil Union" is akin to "separate but equal."

Not in the eyes of the church (unless those rules changed since I was a kid)... It doesn't count unless a priest signed off on it.

The point is marriage is not "reserved" for Catholics.   That's a flat out bigoted statement right there.

Meh, don't tell me, tell them. Read up where I say I specifically, consciously declined to be confirmed... I am just translating catholic to lay person as a public service, I don't agree with huge swaths of their shiat.


Just as I'm pointing out that the term "civil union" is an insult to people who want to get married.
 
2020-10-21 12:36:17 PM  
Ooooh, civil unions! Now tell us how separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks means shorter lines for everyone!
 
2020-10-21 12:39:53 PM  

FlashHarry: He's saying that same-sex unions (marriage) should be legal. But same sex marriage (the catholic sacrament) should not be allowed within the Catholic Church.


You have utterly misrepresented his position. Utterly.

Civil unions are not marriages. They are a legal invention to segregate gay people into an institution that has some, but not all, of the attributes of marriage.

This is not a distinction without a difference. It is a distinction for the purpose of creating a difference.

Marriage is a contract and spouse is a legal status. It affects the parties in virtually every area of law. A Catholic or other religious wedding ceremony is but one means by which a couple may choose to solemnize that contract, but a religious ceremony is not an essential element to a valid, legal marriage.

Nobody is insisting that the Catholics should be required to solemnize same-sex marriages. It's irrelevant.

And in conclusion, don't smart your own posts.
 
2020-10-21 12:41:50 PM  

HailRobonia: Ooooh, civil unions! Now tell us how separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks means shorter lines for everyone!


Civil unions were the consensus progressive position a mere 15 years ago.

The Catholic Church is a millennia-old institution that does not respond rapidly to social change.  They were still reciting masses in Latin until the mid-20th Century.

By their standards, an embrace of civil unions would be turning on a dime.
 
2020-10-21 12:41:55 PM  

dkulprit: Ah trying to keep the church relevant.  He's seen the assignment shift in younger demographics either not caring if people who love eachother getting married or outright support it.

How are you going to keep people in the church, and by extension keep them paying into the church if they refuse to join or stay due to their outright refusal to get with the times?

This isn't some grand gesture because he cares.  This is an attempt to keep the spice (cash) flowing by making them seem inclusive while not actually doing any of it.

It's purely a PR move.   Younger generations are all in, but even amongst older populations it is still at 60+% approval rating.

So as the older generations die off we're looking at a huge amount of support amongst younger generations and they're not going to stay in or join a church that is outright hostile to it.  This is them attempting to stay relevant/functioning and not actually caring.  If the shift hadn't happened he'd still be against it.


I'm pretty sure the 1600ish year old institution, which is accepted globally as a nation state, has loot. 
Keeping the church relevant?  Yes
Fund raising? No
 
2020-10-21 12:46:53 PM  

Dewey Fidalgo: I think all marriages should be "civil" unions,


Surprise! They are. In every state in the US, marriage is defined as a civil contract.

If you just have a religious solemnization ceremony without bothering to fulfill the other statutory requirements, you almost certainly don't have a valid, legal marriage.
 
2020-10-21 12:47:04 PM  
People opposing same sex marriage still touch themselves, the hypocrites.
 
2020-10-21 12:47:46 PM  
I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.
 
2020-10-21 12:51:49 PM  

tekmo: Dewey Fidalgo: I think all marriages should be "civil" unions,

Surprise! They are. In every state in the US, marriage is defined as a civil contract.

If you just have a religious solemnization ceremony without bothering to fulfill the other statutory requirements, you almost certainly don't have a valid, legal marriage.


Meh...I mean actually having to get legally "married", that is, the economic and other stuff sense, done at the courthouse or someplace like that.   In France and other places, you do have the two separate actions.  Religion is separated from civil, very clearly.   You go to whatever the legal entity is (not sure) in a secular setting and get the paperwork done.   If you want a church function, it is separate.
 
2020-10-21 12:53:29 PM  
Couple of things many people are missing, first as the leader of an organization with over a billion members he's definitely slowly shifting things to the progressive side & hopefully will change things for years to come. As many have said, he's actually following the teachings of Christ much more than most Christians.

Second in many countries outside of the US or those in Europe, if you're a Catholic, anything the Pope says is a huge deal.  I have friends who are the first generation born in the US that are so devoted to the church that they have actually changed their views for the better, because of this Pope.

Third, Canon law is kinda like the pirates code, it's more guidelines to set order or structure because it's such a huge organization. Dispensation can be granted by bishops or the Pope when they feel its warranted & they've been doing it with Covid lately.   I actually know a gay priest who was only able to become one because of Francis' views, so while the church definitely has its faults, the effort is at least being made to try & change with the times & actually follow the teachings like they should.
 
2020-10-21 12:55:11 PM  

OldJames: don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.


Libertarian idiocy detected!

Governments have always been the enforcers of contracts. Marriage is a civil contract creating legally enforceable reciprocal obligations between the parties.

If you don't personally want to have legally enforceable reciprocal obligations to another person, then...don't get married.
 
2020-10-21 12:58:06 PM  

OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.


There is certainly a case for this.  Government legalization of "marriage" is an archaic thing almost completely tied to religious institutions.  "Marriage licenses" should just be 100% replaced with "Civil union licenses" that have no bearing on being in a "romantic" or any other kind of personal relationship.  As long as both people are of legal age and not being forced into the union, the "why" shouldn't matter to get all of the legal benefits.  You can still get "married" in "your church", this doesn't replace that... you just would be getting a CU license from the govt. not a "marriage license"... but of course some people hate actually having a separation of church & state.
 
2020-10-21 12:59:10 PM  

MIRV888: dkulprit: Ah trying to keep the church relevant.  He's seen the assignment shift in younger demographics either not caring if people who love eachother getting married or outright support it.

How are you going to keep people in the church, and by extension keep them paying into the church if they refuse to join or stay due to their outright refusal to get with the times?

This isn't some grand gesture because he cares.  This is an attempt to keep the spice (cash) flowing by making them seem inclusive while not actually doing any of it.

It's purely a PR move.   Younger generations are all in, but even amongst older populations it is still at 60+% approval rating.

So as the older generations die off we're looking at a huge amount of support amongst younger generations and they're not going to stay in or join a church that is outright hostile to it.  This is them attempting to stay relevant/functioning and not actually caring.  If the shift hadn't happened he'd still be against it.

I'm pretty sure the 1600ish year old institution, which is accepted globally as a nation state, has loot. 
Keeping the church relevant?  Yes
Fund raising? No


You think relevant and dwindling numbers wouldn't effect their bottom line?

Parishes are already going bankrupt.

Membership and continued tithing is what keeps them running.  Its what keeps the Vatican's coffers full.

That's like saying a business who has billions in assets is immune from going bankruot if they lose members because they have billions in assets.  Sure they can stay afloat for a while if they sell off assets, but that wouldn't keep them afloat forever.

The catholic church is a money hungry orginization.  If you think they only care about their membership because of souls you are sadly mistaken.
 
2020-10-21 12:59:56 PM  

OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.


media.makeameme.orgView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 1:00:54 PM  

Dewey Fidalgo: Meh...I mean actually having to get legally "married", that is, the economic and other stuff sense, done at the courthouse or someplace like that.


And I am telling you -- this is already the case. That's why people have to obtain a marriage license from the state based on residency, age, consanguinity, and other requirements. The requirements must be met, the form has to be properly attested like any other contract, then properly filed with the state.

Marriage statutes allow the parties to choose the form of solemnization ceremony they prefer. Many people choose a religious ceremony, but a religious ceremony is not required.
 
2020-10-21 1:03:53 PM  

Cardinal Ximenez: Couple of things many people are missing, first as the leader of an organization with over a billion members he's definitely slowly shifting things to the progressive side & hopefully will change things for years to come. As many have said, he's actually following the teachings of Christ much more than most Christians.

Second in many countries outside of the US or those in Europe, if you're a Catholic, anything the Pope says is a huge deal.  I have friends who are the first generation born in the US that are so devoted to the church that they have actually changed their views for the better, because of this Pope.

Third, Canon law is kinda like the pirates code, it's more guidelines to set order or structure because it's such a huge organization. Dispensation can be granted by bishops or the Pope when they feel its warranted & they've been doing it with Covid lately.   I actually know a gay priest who was only able to become one because of Francis' views, so while the church definitely has its faults, the effort is at least being made to try & change with the times & actually follow the teachings like they should.


And I bet nobody expected it!
 
2020-10-21 1:04:08 PM  

Doc Daneeka: HailRobonia: Ooooh, civil unions! Now tell us how separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks means shorter lines for everyone!

Civil unions were the consensus progressive position a mere 15 years ago.


Not sure where you're getting this.
 
2020-10-21 1:05:34 PM  

OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.


Except we have a Supreme Court ruling on the matter, and protecting human rights is very much government's job.
 
2020-10-21 1:06:37 PM  

SVC_conservative: The other thread should have gotten green, but to repeat.

What do you call a Catholic who disagrees with the Pope?


Protestant


Yeah, that's pretty much the definition of Protestantism.
 
rka
2020-10-21 1:06:50 PM  

severedtoe: don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.


Not exactly. My divorced mother and Catholic stepfather could have been married in the Catholic church.

...if she would have annulled her first marriage to my Dad. Who was still very much present in our lives.

She did not follow through with the annulment however and they got married in the Lutheran Church in town instead.
 
2020-10-21 1:12:19 PM  

nekom: [Fark user image 257x196]
It's not at odds with the teachings of Jesus, that's for sure.  Now the old testament, well that's another story.


Well thankfully, one of the primary points of the teachings of Jesus was that the he was the new way and covenant, and that the old ways were done, over with, and outta here.

/now if only these fundie assholes would remember to read their own damn book...
//anyone that tries to throw the old testament at me gets laughed at immediately
///it's been retconned out you dumbfarks - says RIGHT HERE
 
2020-10-21 1:15:33 PM  

dletter: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

There is certainly a case for this.  Government legalization of "marriage" is an archaic thing almost completely tied to religious institutions.  "Marriage licenses" should just be 100% replaced with "Civil union licenses" that have no bearing on being in a "romantic" or any other kind of personal relationship.  As long as both people are of legal age and not being forced into the union, the "why" shouldn't matter to get all of the legal benefits.  You can still get "married" in "your church", this doesn't replace that... you just would be getting a CU license from the govt. not a "marriage license"... but of course some people hate actually having a separation of church & state.


Not really all the laws in the country protect a married couple. Even gay people who were together before it was legal had their lives ripped apart, because even if they had powers of attorney and all the other legal paperwork, they often were barred from the hospital by the family and their possessions were stolen by the spouse that died family.

So yes marriage recognized by the state is necessary, unless of course you want to change all 11,000 federal laws that deal with marriage.
 
2020-10-21 1:16:24 PM  

tekmo: OldJames: don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

Libertarian idiocy detected!

Governments have always been the enforcers of contracts. Marriage is a civil contract creating legally enforceable reciprocal obligations between the parties.

If you don't personally want to have legally enforceable reciprocal obligations to another person, then...don't get married.


There's nothing wrong with it being a contract between multiple parties, enforceable by the government. But it shouldn't provide extra benefits to citizens that do that. You want to do a marriage thing, go to your religious whatever. You want to share assets, go to a lawyer. You want bonus social security, no.
 
2020-10-21 1:16:50 PM  

dkulprit: MIRV888: dkulprit: Ah trying to keep the church relevant.  He's seen the assignment shift in younger demographics either not caring if people who love eachother getting married or outright support it.

How are you going to keep people in the church, and by extension keep them paying into the church if they refuse to join or stay due to their outright refusal to get with the times?

This isn't some grand gesture because he cares.  This is an attempt to keep the spice (cash) flowing by making them seem inclusive while not actually doing any of it.

It's purely a PR move.   Younger generations are all in, but even amongst older populations it is still at 60+% approval rating.

So as the older generations die off we're looking at a huge amount of support amongst younger generations and they're not going to stay in or join a church that is outright hostile to it.  This is them attempting to stay relevant/functioning and not actually caring.  If the shift hadn't happened he'd still be against it.

I'm pretty sure the 1600ish year old institution, which is accepted globally as a nation state, has loot. 
Keeping the church relevant?  Yes
Fund raising? No

You think relevant and dwindling numbers wouldn't effect their bottom line?

Parishes are already going bankrupt.

Membership and continued tithing is what keeps them running.  Its what keeps the Vatican's coffers full.

That's like saying a business who has billions in assets is immune from going bankruot if they lose members because they have billions in assets.  Sure they can stay afloat for a while if they sell off assets, but that wouldn't keep them afloat forever.

The catholic church is a money hungry orginization.  If you think they only care about their membership because of souls you are sadly mistaken.


Not to mention the Vatican really hates selling off its baubles, and need to make sure all the people at the Vatican have everything they need.
 
2020-10-21 1:19:06 PM  

nekom: [Fark user image image 257x196]
It's not at odds with the teachings of Jesus, that's for sure.  Now the old testament, well that's another story.


That's the thing I'll never understand about old testament Christians. The whole point of Jesus was to form a new covenant with God, a sort of contract renegotiation that rendered the previous covenant null and void. You either accept that the old testament is no longer an authority in Christian religion, or you accept that you're not really a Christian.
 
2020-10-21 1:20:30 PM  

rka: severedtoe: don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.

Not exactly. My divorced mother and Catholic stepfather could have been married in the Catholic church.

...if she would have annulled her first marriage to my Dad. Who was still very much present in our lives.

She did not follow through with the annulment however and they got married in the Lutheran Church in town instead.


She should have just had him beheaded, there is precedence.
 
2020-10-21 1:22:34 PM  
Great headlilne!
 
2020-10-21 1:22:55 PM  

Begoggle: American Catholics will be particularly angry.


You mean the same American Catholics that want people to vote for Trump over a devout Catholic in Biden because he's a Democrat? Those people?

Yeah, they're farking clowns.
 
2020-10-21 1:23:34 PM  

punkwrestler: dletter: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

There is certainly a case for this.  Government legalization of "marriage" is an archaic thing almost completely tied to religious institutions.  "Marriage licenses" should just be 100% replaced with "Civil union licenses" that have no bearing on being in a "romantic" or any other kind of personal relationship.  As long as both people are of legal age and not being forced into the union, the "why" shouldn't matter to get all of the legal benefits.  You can still get "married" in "your church", this doesn't replace that... you just would be getting a CU license from the govt. not a "marriage license"... but of course some people hate actually having a separation of church & state.

Not really all the laws in the country protect a married couple. Even gay people who were together before it was legal had their lives ripped apart, because even if they had powers of attorney and all the other legal paperwork, they often were barred from the hospital by the family and their possessions were stolen by the spouse that died family.

So yes marriage recognized by the state is necessary, unless of course you want to change all 11,000 federal laws that deal with marriage.


I don't know that "rip apart" as much as "rename" (all 'Marriages' are called 'Civil Unions' henseforth and forward), since the big "sticking point" seems to be around the term "marriage"... give that back to the "church".

Of course, doing that would then uncover that some just want to browbeat LGBTQ people, with "legal marriage" just being one way they have to do it.   Which is why they care to keep that specific wording legally.

But, it may be that you can't just "wave a magic wand" about changing one word to two in the laws.
 
2020-10-21 1:26:10 PM  

nemisonic: nemisonic: KB202: TuckFrump: It's a start in the right direction. Still a lot of work to do, but it's a start

Isn't it weird how every time money dries up, God changes his mind about a sin?

Yes, that's a "Thing" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgen​ce


The whole 'selling indulgences' is hardly a new concept. The Catholics have been literally selling a 'get out of hell' card for centuries.
 
2020-10-21 1:27:30 PM  

dletter: I don't know that "rip apart" as much as "rename" (all 'Marriages' are called 'Civil Unions' henseforth and forward), since the big "sticking point" seems to be around the term "marriage"... give that back to the "church".


The "church" never "had" the term "marriage" - they have the terms "wedlock" and "matrimony". Why can't they keep using those? Why do they need to steal "marriage", too? Where will it stop? Will they also want to steal "civil union" at some point, and we have to rename everything again?

/also, if the big "sticking point" is around the term "marriage", then why did so many states pass laws or constitutional amendments that barred providing any legal rights to gay couples? Is it because those religious bigots are actually huge liars?
 
2020-10-21 1:29:10 PM  

dletter: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

There is certainly a case for this.  Government legalization of "marriage" is an archaic thing almost completely tied to religious institutions.  "Marriage licenses" should just be 100% replaced with "Civil union licenses" that have no bearing on being in a "romantic" or any other kind of personal relationship.  As long as both people are of legal age and not being forced into the union, the "why" shouldn't matter to get all of the legal benefits.  You can still get "married" in "your church", this doesn't replace that... you just would be getting a CU license from the govt. not a "marriage license"... but of course some people hate actually having a separation of church & state.


This post is such a huge rewriting of history, and also ignores present day reality.
 
2020-10-21 1:31:10 PM  

tekmo: Dewey Fidalgo: Meh...I mean actually having to get legally "married", that is, the economic and other stuff sense, done at the courthouse or someplace like that.

And I am telling you -- this is already the case. That's why people have to obtain a marriage license from the state based on residency, age, consanguinity, and other requirements. The requirements must be met, the form has to be properly attested like any other contract, then properly filed with the state.

Marriage statutes allow the parties to choose the form of solemnization ceremony they prefer. Many people choose a religious ceremony, but a religious ceremony is not required.


It makes you wonder if Dewey has ever been married.
 
2020-10-21 1:33:40 PM  

Theaetetus: dletter: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

There is certainly a case for this.  Government legalization of "marriage" is an archaic thing almost completely tied to religious institutions.  "Marriage licenses" should just be 100% replaced with "Civil union licenses" that have no bearing on being in a "romantic" or any other kind of personal relationship.  As long as both people are of legal age and not being forced into the union, the "why" shouldn't matter to get all of the legal benefits.  You can still get "married" in "your church", this doesn't replace that... you just would be getting a CU license from the govt. not a "marriage license"... but of course some people hate actually having a separation of church & state.

This post is such a huge rewriting of history, and also ignores present day reality.


Hey, as a non-churchgoing Unitarian, I'm fine with going "Fark you" to the evangelicals and religious right on that.

I'm just recognizing how that's gone the last 30-40 years.
 
2020-10-21 1:45:35 PM  

dkulprit: Drank_the_40_water: Tomahawk513: severedtoe: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.

That's not exactly true either.  Annulments aren't common but they aren't exactly rare either.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/prin​t-edition/what-are-grounds-for-annulme​nt *

*Turns out I was wrong about the Orthodox comment above, still need a dispensation from the Bishop

CSB, my grandma got an annulment (effectively a pronouncement that it never happened) after 17 years and 8 kids! And that was 50ish years ago. Not as hard to get as they say it is...

Depends on your area, how large the local parish is, your social standing, and how well you know your bishop.

I know a lady whose husband was literally stealing from the church which got him kicked out and the bishop wouldn't allow annul her marriage...  so she got a divorce.... and he died right after the proceedings.

She is still diehard and still goes to mass, but isn't allowed to take communion.

shiat's wild.

If anyone did something like that to me it would make me question my willingness to be a part of what they believe in.

But there's a reason I'm agnostic.


She should be allowed communion. Catholics say a civil divorce does not end a marriage from the Catholic Church.
But he's dead. Which does end a catholic marriage.

So...
Saturday confession, Sunday communion.
 
2020-10-21 1:51:49 PM  
Well played, subby.
 
2020-10-21 1:53:37 PM  

Doc Daneeka: HailRobonia: Ooooh, civil unions! Now tell us how separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks means shorter lines for everyone!

Civil unions were the consensus progressive position a mere 15 years ago.

The Catholic Church is a millennia-old institution that does not respond rapidly to social change.  They were still reciting masses in Latin until the mid-20th Century.

By their standards, an embrace of civil unions would be turning on a dime.


Oddly enough, civil unions were offered by progressives as a compromise position (similar to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"), which was firmly rejected by conservatives who thought that even the compromise was going too far.


The Republican platform committee resoundingly rejected an amendment Tuesday that would have endorsed civil unions for gay couples.

"Our party has always been the party of defending traditional marriage," said Sharee Langenstein from Illinois. "We need to continue being the party that defends traditional marriage."

Indiana representative Jim Bopp called civil unions "counterfeit marriage."

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach opposed the amendment on the ground that government routinely regulates behaviors like drugs and polygamy.
"We condemn those activities even though they're not hurting other people, at least directly," he said.

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/0​8​/gop-platform-committee-rejects-civil-​unions-079936
 
2020-10-21 1:56:59 PM  
I don't understand why any institution anywhere would prevent people from entering into a joyful union that turns into misery and resentment after a few years when you're sick of each other.

Gotta say though, funny how many of you want it both ways.   Fark religion and religious institutions, they're irrelevant, who cares.   Then it's farking religious institutions won't recognize gay marriage, I'm OUTRAGED.
Go get a civil union and who cares about it being recognized by a religious institution?  How many gay people are hardcore religious anyway?
 
2020-10-21 1:57:19 PM  

HighOnCraic: Oddly enough, civil unions were offered by progressives as a compromise position (similar to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"), which was firmly rejected by conservatives who thought that even the compromise was going too far.


Where are you getting this?

Which "progressives" offered this compromise?
 
2020-10-21 2:05:59 PM  

whidbey: HighOnCraic: Oddly enough, civil unions were offered by progressives as a compromise position (similar to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"), which was firmly rejected by conservatives who thought that even the compromise was going too far.

Where are you getting this?

Which "progressives" offered this compromise?


From memory, but given time, I could probably find citations.
 
2020-10-21 2:06:00 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

"I must admit, against all better judgement, I like this Pope."
 
2020-10-21 2:12:39 PM  

dletter: punkwrestler: dletter: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

There is certainly a case for this.  Government legalization of "marriage" is an archaic thing almost completely tied to religious institutions.  "Marriage licenses" should just be 100% replaced with "Civil union licenses" that have no bearing on being in a "romantic" or any other kind of personal relationship.  As long as both people are of legal age and not being forced into the union, the "why" shouldn't matter to get all of the legal benefits.  You can still get "married" in "your church", this doesn't replace that... you just would be getting a CU license from the govt. not a "marriage license"... but of course some people hate actually having a separation of church & state.

Not really all the laws in the country protect a married couple. Even gay people who were together before it was legal had their lives ripped apart, because even if they had powers of attorney and all the other legal paperwork, they often were barred from the hospital by the family and their possessions were stolen by the spouse that died family.

So yes marriage recognized by the state is necessary, unless of course you want to change all 11,000 federal laws that deal with marriage.

I don't know that "rip apart" as much as "rename" (all 'Marriages' are called 'Civil Unions' henseforth and forward), since the big "sticking point" seems to be around the term "marriage"... give that back to the "church".

Of course, doing that would then uncover that some just want to browbeat LGBTQ people, with "legal marriage" just being one way they have to do it.   Which is why they care to keep that specific wording legally.

But, it may be that you can't just "wave a magic wand" about changing one word to two in the laws.


Renaming an institution that has already been legally secular for many years (and never at any point unique to a single religion) to placate a specific religioun in the name of secularism is kind of a crazy way to take things though.

All it does is offer another way for them to control society, by declaring something "theirs", and forcing the law to change to adapt to a specific religions preferences. It seems like a pretty theocratic form of secularism.

All civil unions ever were were a way to say "well if we have to share we'd rather burn the whole thing down", and most people on the right weren't even willing to do that.
 
2020-10-21 2:14:47 PM  

HighOnCraic: whidbey: HighOnCraic: Oddly enough, civil unions were offered by progressives as a compromise position (similar to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"), which was firmly rejected by conservatives who thought that even the compromise was going too far.

Where are you getting this?

Which "progressives" offered this compromise?

From memory, but given time, I could probably find citations.


I'd be interested.

Because progressives have fought for the real thing: same sex marriage, for well over 50 years or more.

"Civil Unions" is what the moderates wanted.
 
2020-10-21 2:17:33 PM  

madgonad: tekmo: Not marriages. Of course not.

The PR Pope here is advocating on behalf of OTHER governments to create laws that relegate gay people to separate-but-equal "civil unions."

He won't make these laws in the Vatican, of course. Even though it's entirely in his power. Nope.

And he also now claims he "stood up for" civil unions when he lived in Argentina.

Which is a lie.

He was a vocal opponent of marriage equality in Argentina, in pretty offensive terms. There are some who claim that he privately said he was okay with separate-but-equal.

That is not "standing up for X."

Francis is a fraud. Don't be suckered.

Dude, this is the Pope.

Baby steps.


Yeah, the Pope-head of one of the biggest criminal organizations in the world. The same pope who sanctioned moving pedophile priests and their enablers to new parishes to cover up their horrors. the same pope who heads an organization that collaborates with the Nazis. the same pope who is against birth control. the same pope who pushes his religion on fols in developing countries to shore up the loss of gullible parishoners inthe West.
Fark the pope. Fark religion.

God is just pretend. Cannot get over how grown-ass adults believe in a magical, invisible wizard that allows childhood cancers, watches rapes and tortures without lifting a finger to help, allows genocide (in fact, participated in it-see Noah) yet will let you burn in hell for masturbating.
 
2020-10-21 2:28:36 PM  

1funguy: dkulprit: Drank_the_40_water: Tomahawk513: severedtoe: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.

That's not exactly true either.  Annulments aren't common but they aren't exactly rare either.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/prin​t-edition/what-are-grounds-for-annulme​nt *

*Turns out I was wrong about the Orthodox comment above, still need a dispensation from the Bishop

CSB, my grandma got an annulment (effectively a pronouncement that it never happened) after 17 years and 8 kids! And that was 50ish years ago. Not as hard to get as they say it is...

Depends on your area, how large the local parish is, your social standing, and how well you know your bishop.

I know a lady whose husband was literally stealing from the church which got him kicked out and the bishop wouldn't allow annul her marriage...  so she got a divorce.... and he died right after the proceedings.

She is still diehard and still goes to mass, but isn't allowed to take communion.

shiat's wild.

If anyone did something like that to me it would make me question my willingness to be a part of what they believe in.

But there's a reason I'm agnostic.

She should be allowed communion. Catholics say a civil divorce does not end a marriage from the Catholic Church.
But he's dead. Which does end a catholic marriage.

So...
Saturday confession, Sunday communion.


Don't ask me.  She got remarried though, so that might be it.  He was definitely dead before she remarried.

She belongs to the Cincinnati diocese, she's not allowed to take communion.

Thats all I know, don't pretend to understand their whole wishy washy belief system.
 
2020-10-21 2:29:51 PM  

1funguy: dkulprit: Drank_the_40_water: Tomahawk513: severedtoe: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.

That's not exactly true either.  Annulments aren't common but they aren't exactly rare either.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/prin​t-edition/what-are-grounds-for-annulme​nt *

*Turns out I was wrong about the Orthodox comment above, still need a dispensation from the Bishop

CSB, my grandma got an annulment (effectively a pronouncement that it never happened) after 17 years and 8 kids! And that was 50ish years ago. Not as hard to get as they say it is...

Depends on your area, how large the local parish is, your social standing, and how well you know your bishop.

I know a lady whose husband was literally stealing from the church which got him kicked out and the bishop wouldn't allow annul her marriage...  so she got a divorce.... and he died right after the proceedings.

She is still diehard and still goes to mass, but isn't allowed to take communion.

shiat's wild.

If anyone did something like that to me it would make me question my willingness to be a part of what they believe in.

But there's a reason I'm agnostic.

She should be allowed communion. Catholics say a civil divorce does not end a marriage from the Catholic Church.
But he's dead. Which does end a catholic marriage.

So...
Saturday confession, Sunday communion.


Also her second marriage is not recognized by diocese either and the newer husband is also catholic and it is his first marriage.

He can take communion even though their marriage is not recognized.

Its farking stupid.
 
2020-10-21 2:29:53 PM  

nekom: [Fark user image 257x196]
It's not at odds with the teachings of Jesus, that's for sure.  Now the old testament, well that's another story.


Ironically opposition to homosexuality came with the "corporate merger" of the Church and the Roman State.   Homosexuality was STIRCTLY forbidden by Roman law much like it was in Sparta.   Of Course, they didn't exactly define it the way we did.   Having sex with another man was not a homosexual act to them, hell in Sparta it was EXPECTED that you sleep with your trainees.  What was not allowed was EXCLUSIVELY homosexual relationships among men of equal status (aka free men)   They didn't give a fark about how and where you got your rocks off, but you were also expected to take a wife and make some kids to keep the Empire strong. So "marriage" was reserved for procreative purposes.  What you did with your willy in your spare time was your business
 
2020-10-21 2:31:30 PM  

Marshmallow Jones: I don't understand why any institution anywhere would prevent people from entering into a joyful union that turns into misery and resentment after a few years when you're sick of each other.

Gotta say though, funny how many of you want it both ways.   Fark religion and religious institutions, they're irrelevant, who cares.   Then it's farking religious institutions won't recognize gay marriage, I'm OUTRAGED.
Go get a civil union and who cares about it being recognized by a religious institution?  How many gay people are hardcore religious anyway?


Civil unions are recognized differently by law.

Thats the problem.

Marriage = becoming family and having the same rights as family.

Civil union does not have same protections or rights.
 
2020-10-21 2:35:38 PM  

tekmo: Marriage statutes allow the parties to choose the form of solemnization ceremony they prefer. Many people choose a religious ceremony, but a religious ceremony is not required.


No.   I want the religious service to be a separate thing.   The marriage or civil union or whatever is the legally recognized one.   If you get married in a church without going through the separate civil, secular marriage, it doesn't count as a marriage, for tax purposes, medical, etc.
 
2020-10-21 2:39:36 PM  

Theaetetus: tekmo: Dewey Fidalgo: Meh...I mean actually having to get legally "married", that is, the economic and other stuff sense, done at the courthouse or someplace like that.

And I am telling you -- this is already the case. That's why people have to obtain a marriage license from the state based on residency, age, consanguinity, and other requirements. The requirements must be met, the form has to be properly attested like any other contract, then properly filed with the state.

Marriage statutes allow the parties to choose the form of solemnization ceremony they prefer. Many people choose a religious ceremony, but a religious ceremony is not required.

It makes you wonder if Dewey has ever been married.


LOL, you need to read all the comments...

Oh here, replying to you, by he way.

Yes.   I think all marriages should be "civil" unions, then if you want to get married in a church, you can have a "Blessing of Civil Marriage".   Which we did.   Went to the county clerk, got civil marriaged, then later had an Episcopalian "Blessing", which for all intents and purposes was just like a wedding (which made my grandmother very, very happy...she got to see her oldest grandchild finally walk down the aisle, in a "wedding" dress, though not white.)

I was raised feral Catholic, but as my husband to be was divorced...we went to his Episcopalian roots, which was fine, got my bells and smells and a female priest to boot!
 
2020-10-21 2:40:27 PM  
Whether or not this makes sense give the history of the Catholic Church is one thing.

The fact that this is going to throw off the uber Conservative Catholics, though, is extremely important.  Its a chink in the connection between Catholics and Evangelicals, along with his recent statement on capital punishment, which he said is never really acceptable.

Conservative Catholics have a choice...they accuse liberals of being cafeteria catholics...well, how about it now?  Be careful what you wish for.
 
2020-10-21 2:55:32 PM  
A truly excellent discussion of religion and gay marriage by Mary Anne Case of the University of Chicago:

Mary Anne Case on State Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages
Youtube -vEda_-ClYM
 
2020-10-21 2:57:55 PM  

OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.


When someone says "no you're not really married" who is going to enforce it?  Marriage is useless without the government to protect it.
 
2020-10-21 2:58:41 PM  

Dewey Fidalgo: No.   I want the religious service to be a separate thing.


Pay attention: IT IS ALREADY A SEPARATE THING. The state genuinely doesn't give a shiat what sort of solemnization ceremony you indulge in. Religious, non-religious, anti-religious. It. Doesn't. Matter.

If you want a secular solemnization ceremony with a judge as the officiant and the paperwork filed on the spot, you can reserve a spot at the courthouse. If you want a religious solemnization ceremony with your family's Catholic priest as the officiant, you can ask your church for that. If you want an Elvis impersonator to officiate at a theme park, you can have that too if the park agrees.

What is important is that the couple meets the legal criteria to qualify for the license, that the license is filled out correctly, and that the rest of the contractual paperwork is correctly filled out by the officiant and timely filed with the state.

Suppose I sell you my farm and insist that, as part of the deal, we sign the sales contract at the farm during a family bonfire and cookout. Is the deal any less legally valid because someone says grace over dinner? No. Is the sales contract any less valid if it's witnessed by my personal witch doctor? No (unless the witch doctor lacks "contractual capacity.")

>The marriage or civil union or whatever is the legally recognized one.

In the US, all valid, legal marriages are civil marriages. 100%. Most but not all civil marriages are solemnized with a religious ceremony. This is a popular, but not mandatory choice.

>If you get married in a church without going through the separate civil, secular marriage, it doesn't count as a marriage, for tax purposes, medical, etc.

Again, this is already the case.

See e.g. the FLDS' polygamous marriages. Warren Jeffs can claim he has 20 wives, but legally he can only have one spouse, assuming the proper paperwork was filed with the state.
 
2020-10-21 3:00:41 PM  

whidbey: HighOnCraic: Oddly enough, civil unions were offered by progressives as a compromise position (similar to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"), which was firmly rejected by conservatives who thought that even the compromise was going too far.

Where are you getting this?

Which "progressives" offered this compromise?


Howard Dean response to Vermont Supreme Court in 2000.
 
2020-10-21 3:12:04 PM  

Herr Morgenstern: nekom: [Fark user image image 257x196]
It's not at odds with the teachings of Jesus, that's for sure.  Now the old testament, well that's another story.

That's the thing I'll never understand about old testament Christians. The whole point of Jesus was to form a new covenant with God, a sort of contract renegotiation that rendered the previous covenant null and void. You either accept that the old testament is no longer an authority in Christian religion, or you accept that you're not really a Christian.


That view was proposed and rejected in the year 325
 
2020-10-21 3:12:58 PM  

severedtoe: fiddlehead: severedtoe: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.

I wonder if Catholic small business owners who refuse to serve gay couples also refuse to serve people getting remarried.

not a problem unless they eat meat on Friday.


What they do behind closed doors shouldn't be anybody's business.
 
2020-10-21 3:14:15 PM  

12349876: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

When someone says "no you're not really married" who is going to enforce it?  Marriage is useless without the government to protect it.


who cares what someone says?
 
2020-10-21 3:14:16 PM  
"I am SICK and TIRED of hearing that allowing same-sex marriage is a wonderful thing! For the past thirty years, that is all that my wife and I have ever had! Every week, EXACTLY the SAME sex!"

///I'm here till Thursday, try the veal
 
2020-10-21 3:14:23 PM  

tekmo: Dewey Fidalgo: No.   I want the religious service to be a separate thing.

Pay attention: IT IS ALREADY A SEPARATE THING. The state genuinely doesn't give a shiat what sort of solemnization ceremony you indulge in. Religious, non-religious, anti-religious. It. Doesn't. Matter.

If you want a secular solemnization ceremony with a judge as the officiant and the paperwork filed on the spot, you can reserve a spot at the courthouse. If you want a religious solemnization ceremony with your family's Catholic priest as the officiant, you can ask your church for that. If you want an Elvis impersonator to officiate at a theme park, you can have that too if the park agrees.

What is important is that the couple meets the legal criteria to qualify for the license, that the license is filled out correctly, and that the rest of the contractual paperwork is correctly filled out by the officiant and timely filed with the state.

Suppose I sell you my farm and insist that, as part of the deal, we sign the sales contract at the farm during a family bonfire and cookout. Is the deal any less legally valid because someone says grace over dinner? No. Is the sales contract any less valid if it's witnessed by my personal witch doctor? No (unless the witch doctor lacks "contractual capacity.")

>The marriage or civil union or whatever is the legally recognized one.

In the US, all valid, legal marriages are civil marriages. 100%. Most but not all civil marriages are solemnized with a religious ceremony. This is a popular, but not mandatory choice.

>If you get married in a church without going through the separate civil, secular marriage, it doesn't count as a marriage, for tax purposes, medical, etc.

Again, this is already the case.

See e.g. the FLDS' polygamous marriages. Warren Jeffs can claim he has 20 wives, but legally he can only have one spouse, assuming the proper paperwork was filed with the state.


You still aren't hearing what I am saying.   A church wedding would not a legal marriage, in my perfect world.   You want to be legally married, get yourself down to the courthouse.   Then you can have all the bells and whistles or riverbank nude ceremonies you want.  "By the powers vested in me by the state" would be absent.

This also goes for people like my husband, of the Universal Light Church...he used to joke "By the powers vested in me by the state and the internet".   He stopped when some friends asked him to "officiate" at their wedding, but when it came time to sign the paperwork (which is why he got the damn thing in the first place),they told him they hadn't bothered with that.  It pissed him off and he hasn't done one since.

Also went to the nude riverbank ceremony (also ULC), which later involved the happy couple "consumating" in a patch of poison oak....oh, the 70s.
 
2020-10-21 3:18:08 PM  

zepillin: 12349876: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

When someone says "no you're not really married" who is going to enforce it?  Marriage is useless without the government to protect it.

who cares what someone says?


You don't care if a hospital says you can't enter to see your spouse?  You don't care if your employer denies you a chance to put your spouse on insurance?
 
2020-10-21 3:18:59 PM  

12349876: Howard Dean response to Vermont Supreme Court in 2000.


You have badly misunderstood the subject matter and its history.

SCOVT held that the state constitution required that same-sex couples have equal access to the constellation of rights, benefits, and obligations that flow from marriage. They instructed the legislature that this could be accomplished by either (a) providing same-sex couples with access to existing marriage laws, or (b) by carving out some novel separate-but-equal "civil unions" scheme.

Howard Dean, far from being "progressive," insisted on the latter. He'd already promised the Vermont legislature he'd veto any bill that used the word "marriage" in conjunction with same-sex couples.

Dean, many years later, admitted that his "casual homophobia" was informing his decision-making on this matter.

https://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/174651​2​33/how-vermonts-civil-war-fueled-the-g​ay-marriage-movement
 
2020-10-21 3:33:29 PM  

Magorn: nekom: [Fark user image 257x196]
It's not at odds with the teachings of Jesus, that's for sure.  Now the old testament, well that's another story.

Ironically opposition to homosexuality came with the "corporate merger" of the Church and the Roman State.   Homosexuality was STIRCTLY forbidden by Roman law much like it was in Sparta.   Of Course, they didn't exactly define it the way we did.   Having sex with another man was not a homosexual act to them, hell in Sparta it was EXPECTED that you sleep with your trainees.  What was not allowed was EXCLUSIVELY homosexual relationships among men of equal status (aka free men)   They didn't give a fark about how and where you got your rocks off, but you were also expected to take a wife and make some kids to keep the Empire strong. So "marriage" was reserved for procreative purposes.  What you did with your willy in your spare time was your business


Also, Roman notions of sexuality revolved very much around 'penetrator' vs. 'penetratee'. It was ok for men to be the penetrator, but unmanly to be the penetratee, and visa versa for women. It was a dominant/submissive dichotomy. But slaves and male youth were by definition subordinate, so it was therefore ok. In short, we can't map Roman sexuality directly onto ours one-to-one.
 
2020-10-21 3:33:46 PM  

Dewey Fidalgo: You still aren't hearing what I am saying. A church wedding would not a legal marriage, in my perfect world.   You want to be legally married, get yourself down to the courthouse.   Then you can have all the bells and whistles or riverbank nude ceremonies you want.  "By the powers vested in me by the state" would be absent.


No I understand your argument. You're not understanding that the reason why this isn't the case is because it's farking stupid. Other contracts aren't required to be signed under the watchful gaze of a judge, so why should this one contract be treated so uniquely?

It shoudn't.

>This also goes for people like my husband [who] stopped when some friends asked him to "officiate" at their wedding, but when it came time to sign the paperwork...they told him they hadn't bothered with that.  It pissed him off and he hasn't done one since.

CSB, but so what? If people want to have nonbinding commitment ceremonies officiated by internet-certified BS ministers, I'm pretty sure nobody besides you and your husband gives a shiat.

>Also went to the nude riverbank ceremony (also ULC), which later involved the happy couple "consumating" in a patch of poison oak....oh, the 70s.

Again, why do you imagine that anyone besides you gives a shiat about any of this? Being a nudist is no more an impediment to marital capacity than being gay.

Just because you disapprove of the way certain people choose to live doesn't mean they shouldn't be married.
 
2020-10-21 3:39:50 PM  

tekmo: Dewey Fidalgo: You still aren't hearing what I am saying. A church wedding would not a legal marriage, in my perfect world.   You want to be legally married, get yourself down to the courthouse.   Then you can have all the bells and whistles or riverbank nude ceremonies you want.  "By the powers vested in me by the state" would be absent.

No I understand your argument. You're not understanding that the reason why this isn't the case is because it's farking stupid. Other contracts aren't required to be signed under the watchful gaze of a judge, so why should this one contract be treated so uniquely?

It shoudn't.

>This also goes for people like my husband [who] stopped when some friends asked him to "officiate" at their wedding, but when it came time to sign the paperwork...they told him they hadn't bothered with that.  It pissed him off and he hasn't done one since.

CSB, but so what? If people want to have nonbinding commitment ceremonies officiated by internet-certified BS ministers, I'm pretty sure nobody besides you and your husband gives a shiat.

>Also went to the nude riverbank ceremony (also ULC), which later involved the happy couple "consumating" in a patch of poison oak....oh, the 70s.

Again, why do you imagine that anyone besides you gives a shiat about any of this? Being a nudist is no more an impediment to marital capacity than being gay.

Just because you disapprove of the way certain people choose to live doesn't mean they shouldn't be married.


Fine...are the other contracts required to be filed at the county clerk's office to be valid, because the marriage "contract" is. You don't file it, the marriage isn't legally valid.  But I don't care.   Get religion out of legal marriage, that is my point.

But I am done with you.   Seriously, you have issues.
 
2020-10-21 3:40:28 PM  

12349876: zepillin: 12349876: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

When someone says "no you're not really married" who is going to enforce it?  Marriage is useless without the government to protect it.

who cares what someone says?

You don't care if a hospital says you can't enter to see your spouse?  You don't care if your employer denies you a chance to put your spouse on insurance?


civil agreements and power of attorney could cover that just fine
 
2020-10-21 3:42:18 PM  
Also if you shouldn't have visitors you shouldn't have visitors

and Health Care needs to be not tied to employment
 
2020-10-21 3:47:44 PM  
And why should your dearest friend in the world not be able to visit you in the hospital but the woman that you're sticking with because of the kids otherwise you wouldn't be with her should be able to see you it's just dumb
 
2020-10-21 3:59:01 PM  
Jeez.  Lighten up Francises.
 
2020-10-21 4:04:27 PM  

tekmo: 12349876: Howard Dean response to Vermont Supreme Court in 2000.

You have badly misunderstood the subject matter and its history.

SCOVT held that the state constitution required that same-sex couples have equal access to the constellation of rights, benefits, and obligations that flow from marriage. They instructed the legislature that this could be accomplished by either (a) providing same-sex couples with access to existing marriage laws, or (b) by carving out some novel separate-but-equal "civil unions" scheme.

Howard Dean, far from being "progressive," insisted on the latter. He'd already promised the Vermont legislature he'd veto any bill that used the word "marriage" in conjunction with same-sex couples.

Dean, many years later, admitted that his "casual homophobia" was informing his decision-making on this matter.

https://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/1746512​33/how-vermonts-civil-war-fueled-the-g​ay-marriage-movement


I chuckled when they called Dean a progressive.

But I didn't bother responding because even the staunchest Corporate Democrat is a progressive radical liberal to the right.  Even good ole neo liberal democrats are radical leftists in their eyes.

When actual progressive leftists dislike neo liberals.
 
2020-10-21 4:10:08 PM  

BoothbyTCD: Roman notions of sexuality revolved very much around 'penetrator' vs. 'penetratee'....But slaves and male youth were by definition subordinate, so it was therefore ok.


Well, that's not entirely accurate.

It was absolutely a violation of Roman law and social norms for any man to use a citizen's child for sex. That sort of pedophilia was viewed about as dimly by them as it is currently viewed by us. For most of the history of Republican and Imperial Rome, nobody really cared about same-sex relationships between grownups, beyond it providing a basis for giving someone a bit of shiat, which was a popular Roman pastime.

For example, one feature of a Late Republic triumph was the victorious soldiers singing raunchy ditties as they paraded through the city. During one of Caesar's triumphs, his legions sang a song about him being a giant man-whore. The lyrics called him "every woman's husband, and every man's wife."

This was Caesar these soldiers were singing about! Basically to his face! Romans found the implication far more hilarious than scandalous. Sure, there was always some old conservative moral scold like Cato to tut-tut! this sort of thing, but it would be wrong to believe that Cato represented the general morals of his time. He certainly did not, and he'd be the first to say so.

There was one famous case during the Late Republic where a general was actually prosecuted for engaging in a sexual relationship with a subordinate, but the complaint was founded on the fact the general was coercing the sex from a younger aristocrat. So essentially, it really should be understood as a rape case, rather than evidence there was some consistently fierce and broad Roman social opprobrium toward homosexuality.

Which is not to say there were never pulses of anti-gay "family values" moralism in ancient Rome. There certainly were. But they were the exception rather than the norm.
 
2020-10-21 4:13:20 PM  

zepillin: 12349876: zepillin: 12349876: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

When someone says "no you're not really married" who is going to enforce it?  Marriage is useless without the government to protect it.

who cares what someone says?

You don't care if a hospital says you can't enter to see your spouse?  You don't care if your employer denies you a chance to put your spouse on insurance?

civil agreements and power of attorney could cover that just fine


And thats the exactly the farking point.  If my wife is hospital I can go be by her side without question.  But in a civil union a person would have to go gather paperwork, present paperwork, have paperwork scrutinized, etc.

Yes because those things are handy at all times and have never been fought in court.

In the eyes of the law and in the eyes of people they are different.  If civil unions had exact same rights as marriage, sure, we're good.  But they don't, instead your arguing that people should accept lesser rights because that's what people are offering.

Let's change this up a bit, would you feel the same way about this if let's say instead of a gay couple, it was an interracial couple instead?  Not even gay, but a black female and a white male or white male and black female.

Would you be saying they should accept a civil union because some people don't think their relationship is right?

Because that is exactly the case that got the religious right riled up (and eventually got them turned on roe v wade but thats another story).

If you think it's wrong that an interracial but straight couple would be denied the same rights as married couples but think a civil union is ok for gay people you need to do some soul searching and realize you're a hypocrite.
 
2020-10-21 4:16:32 PM  
It's over. Cons lost. Get over it.
 
2020-10-21 4:21:25 PM  

Dewey Fidalgo: Fine...are the other contracts required to be filed at the county clerk's office to be valid,


Some other contracts are indeed required to be filed with various departments, yes. Contracts of the sale of deeded property, articles of incorporation, that sort of thing. It's generally limited to agreements that are likely to be disputed which implicate substantial rights and property.

>Get religion out of legal marriage, that is my point.

How many different ways do you need to have it explained to you that religion is already NOT a component of a valid legal civil marriage?

No state has a requirement that any aspect of a valid civil marriage be religious in nature. The required solemnization ceremony, may at the option of the parties, have a religious character.

May, BUT NOT MUST.

>But I am done with you.   Seriously, you have issues.

Perhaps I do, but you are being profoundly dense, ridiculously argumentative, and not nearly as charming as you imagine.
 
2020-10-21 4:24:11 PM  

whidbey: Drank_the_40_water: whidbey: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

Gay atheists get married too, though.  "Civil Union" is akin to "separate but equal."

Not in the eyes of the church (unless those rules changed since I was a kid)... It doesn't count unless a priest signed off on it.

The point is marriage is not "reserved" for Catholics.   That's a flat out bigoted statement right there.


I'm just saying that the Pope likely doesn't view my atheist wedding as a "marriage" but instead a "civil union" like gay marriages or Pagan marriages. He likely sees a true "marriage" as one between Catholics and perhaps between people of the same Abrahamic religion, that's it.

/Fortunately, he doesn't get to make the rules.
 
2020-10-21 4:26:34 PM  

tekmo: 12349876: Howard Dean response to Vermont Supreme Court in 2000.

You have badly misunderstood the subject matter and its history.

SCOVT held that the state constitution required that same-sex couples have equal access to the constellation of rights, benefits, and obligations that flow from marriage. They instructed the legislature that this could be accomplished by either (a) providing same-sex couples with access to existing marriage laws, or (b) by carving out some novel separate-but-equal "civil unions" scheme.

Howard Dean, far from being "progressive," insisted on the latter. He'd already promised the Vermont legislature he'd veto any bill that used the word "marriage" in conjunction with same-sex couples.

Dean, many years later, admitted that his "casual homophobia" was informing his decision-making on this matter.

https://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/1746512​33/how-vermonts-civil-war-fueled-the-g​ay-marriage-movement


So you're saying Howard Dean wasn't a progressive?  He was too liberal in the 2004 primary.

And the Civil Union decision was the moment that the right wing went all in for the state constitutional amendment bans many of which included civil unions.
 
2020-10-21 4:27:17 PM  

zepillin: civil agreements and power of attorney could cover that just fine


So you're arguing on behalf of couples creating binding, enforceable civil contracts that invest each other with reciprocal obligations?

This already exists and it's called "marriage."

/facepalm
 
2020-10-21 4:30:14 PM  

12349876: So you're saying Howard Dean wasn't a progressive?


In the sense that Howard Dean chose to align with the conservatives in this matter due to what he later admitted was guided by his own bigotry, he was very much not being a progressive.
 
2020-10-21 4:32:25 PM  

dkulprit: zepillin: 12349876: zepillin: 12349876: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

When someone says "no you're not really married" who is going to enforce it?  Marriage is useless without the government to protect it.

who cares what someone says?

You don't care if a hospital says you can't enter to see your spouse?  You don't care if your employer denies you a chance to put your spouse on insurance?

civil agreements and power of attorney could cover that just fine

And thats the exactly the farking point.  If my wife is hospital I can go be by her side without question.  But in a civil union a person would have to go gather paperwork, present paperwork, have paperwork scrutinized, etc.

Yes because those things are handy at all times and have never been fought in court.

In the eyes of the law and in the eyes of people they are different.  If civil unions had exact same rights as marriage, sure, we're good.  But they don't, instead your arguing that people should accept lesser rights because that's what people are offering.

Let's change this up a bit, would you feel the same way about this if let's say instead of a gay couple, it was an interracial couple instead?  Not even gay, but a black female and a white male or white male and black female.

Would you be saying they should accept a civil union because some people don't think their relationship is right?

Because that is exactly the case that got the religious right riled up (and eventually got them turned on roe v wade but thats another story).

If you think it's wrong that an interracial but straight couple would be denied the same rights as married couples but think a civil union is ok for gay people you need to do some soul searching and realize you're a hypocrite.


What are you going on about
 
2020-10-21 4:34:22 PM  

tekmo: 12349876: So you're saying Howard Dean wasn't a progressive?

In the sense that Howard Dean chose to align with the conservatives in this matter due to what he later admitted was guided by his own bigotry, he was very much not being a progressive.


Dean was very liberal for the time overall and attempted to compromise with civil unions and the conservatives still went on a bat shiat crazy spree banning civil unions in many states.
 
2020-10-21 4:44:19 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 4:44:31 PM  

tekmo: 12349876: So you're saying Howard Dean wasn't a progressive?

In the sense that Howard Dean chose to align with the conservatives in this matter due to what he later admitted was guided by his own bigotry, he was very much not being a progressive.


Dean's decision was only a few years after many Democrats supported Defense of Marriage Act and many Democrats back then agreed with Dean's decision.

Positions can change in their level of conservative/progressive over time.
 
2020-10-21 4:46:11 PM  

OldJames: There's nothing wrong with it being a contract...But it shouldn't provide extra benefits to citizens that do that....You want to share assets, go to a lawyer. You want bonus social security, no.


Societies have always preferred to encourage couples and families to take care of each other rather than to render every individual society's burden.

Fortunately for your grandma, our government and people much smarter and kinder than you ensured that marriage provided your grandma access to her husband's retirement benefits after he died.

Do you imagine it somehow makes more sense to leave grandma destitute in her widowhood? You'd prefer she become your or your family's personal burden, rather than to simply allow her access to the retirement benefits she helped her husband earn?

That's cold, James. Even for a libertarian.
 
2020-10-21 4:46:14 PM  
I'm saying if you want to have a visitor and you're allowed to have a visitor You should be you should be able to have anyone come visit that you want to come visit

I'm saying if you're allowed to add household members to your insurance you should be able to add any household member to your insurance

That's what I'm saying
 
2020-10-21 4:52:28 PM  
And if two people want to file jointly so they can end up paying more taxes that if they Filed as single they Should be able to

Not sure if that's still a thing or not
 
2020-10-21 4:52:43 PM  
Government can affect equality in civil matters, but God forbid they try to meddle in the affairs of religion, which apparently have carte blanche to meddle in government.
 
2020-10-21 4:58:25 PM  

12349876: Dean was very liberal for the time overall and attempted to compromise with civil unions


You plainly did not bother to read the source I provided you as you persist in being wrong.

SCOVT gave Vermont's government two choices: equal marriage OR civil unions. Progressives in the legislature wanted equal marriage, conservatives were angry and wanted gays to get nothing. But since "nothing" wasn't an available option available, they grudgingly chose civil unions.

Howard Dean -- notwithstanding his position on any other goddam issue under the sun -- took the same position as the legislature's conservatives, which is not a thing that progressives typically do, especially regarding the civil rights of harmless minorities. Right?

Howard Dean did not "offer civil unions" as if he was making some sort of "progressive compromise." Indeed, Dean didn't offer a compromise at all. To the contrary, he promised he'd veto marriage even if that was the will of the Legislature.

This is how things actually happened. You're misremembering or something. You don't have to read my source. Go read an article from any reputable source.
 
2020-10-21 4:59:48 PM  

12349876: Dean's decision was only a few years after many Democrats supported Defense of Marriage Act and many Democrats back then agreed with Dean's decision.


Honey, it wasn't the progressive wing of the Democratic party that supported DOMA.
 
2020-10-21 5:36:50 PM  

zepillin: dkulprit: zepillin: 12349876: zepillin: 12349876: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

When someone says "no you're not really married" who is going to enforce it?  Marriage is useless without the government to protect it.

who cares what someone says?

You don't care if a hospital says you can't enter to see your spouse?  You don't care if your employer denies you a chance to put your spouse on insurance?

civil agreements and power of attorney could cover that just fine

And thats the exactly the farking point.  If my wife is hospital I can go be by her side without question.  But in a civil union a person would have to go gather paperwork, present paperwork, have paperwork scrutinized, etc.

Yes because those things are handy at all times and have never been fought in court.

In the eyes of the law and in the eyes of people they are different.  If civil unions had exact same rights as marriage, sure, we're good.  But they don't, instead your arguing that people should accept lesser rights because that's what people are offering.

Let's change this up a bit, would you feel the same way about this if let's say instead of a gay couple, it was an interracial couple instead?  Not even gay, but a black female and a white male or white male and black female.

Would you be saying they should accept a civil union because some people don't think their relationship is right?

Because that is exactly the case that got the religious right riled up (and eventually got them turned on roe v wade but thats another story).

If you think it's wrong that an interracial but straight couple would be denied the same rights as married couples but think a civil union is ok for gay people you need to do some soul searching and realize you're a hypocrite.

What are you going on about


You said gay people should accept less rights because "who cares what others think."

I gave you a hypothetical (that used to be true) and asked if you think it is ok.

Pretty straight forward here.
 
2020-10-21 5:55:07 PM  
Well pretty straightforward for a twisted mind just make sure it up what the f*** I'm done
 
2020-10-21 5:55:35 PM  
Just make sheet it up what the f***
 
2020-10-21 6:10:41 PM  

zepillin: I'm saying if you want to have a visitor and you're allowed to have a visitor You should be you should be able to have anyone come visit that you want to come visit

I'm saying if you're allowed to add household members to your insurance you should be able to add any household member to your insurance

That's what I'm saying

 
2020-10-21 6:13:37 PM  
Okay I scrolled up I understand the confusion

I should have been more clear
 
2020-10-21 6:26:12 PM  

dletter: Theaetetus: dletter: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

There is certainly a case for this.  Government legalization of "marriage" is an archaic thing almost completely tied to religious institutions.  "Marriage licenses" should just be 100% replaced with "Civil union licenses" that have no bearing on being in a "romantic" or any other kind of personal relationship.  As long as both people are of legal age and not being forced into the union, the "why" shouldn't matter to get all of the legal benefits.  You can still get "married" in "your church", this doesn't replace that... you just would be getting a CU license from the govt. not a "marriage license"... but of course some people hate actually having a separation of church & state.

This post is such a huge rewriting of history, and also ignores present day reality.

Hey, as a non-churchgoing Unitarian, I'm fine with going "Fark you" to the evangelicals and religious right on that.

I'm just recognizing how that's gone the last 30-40 years.


It hasn't, though. Government legalization of marriage long predates religious institutions, and the church didn't even get involved until the Council of Trent, when they realized that people were going through their lives without ever setting foot inside a church. And marriage licenses have no bearing on romantic relationships - believe it or not, they don't send a clerk to make sure you get your fark on every night. Consider the number of troops who get married to friends for post benefits before getting deployed.
And currently, you get wed in "your church", and if you never sign the paperwork with the county or town, you're not married. My MIL knows this well, because she didn't find out that her wedding in the 1970s didn't actually qualify as a marriage until the 2000s when she had to rush to file paperwork as her, well, fiance technically was dying of cancer and her children were in their 20s and 30s (Massachusetts having no common law marriage).

In other words, your suggestion is the way the law works, and the way the law has worked for over 1000 years. The only distinction is that you want to replace the perfectly good terms "marriage" and "wedding" with "civil union" and, uh, apparently "marriage". As a conservative, I object to this.
 
2020-10-21 6:28:50 PM  

Dewey Fidalgo: Theaetetus: tekmo: Dewey Fidalgo: Meh...I mean actually having to get legally "married", that is, the economic and other stuff sense, done at the courthouse or someplace like that.

And I am telling you -- this is already the case. That's why people have to obtain a marriage license from the state based on residency, age, consanguinity, and other requirements. The requirements must be met, the form has to be properly attested like any other contract, then properly filed with the state.

Marriage statutes allow the parties to choose the form of solemnization ceremony they prefer. Many people choose a religious ceremony, but a religious ceremony is not required.

It makes you wonder if Dewey has ever been married.

LOL, you need to read all the comments...

Oh here, replying to you, by he way.

Yes.   I think all marriages should be "civil" unions, then if you want to get married in a church, you can have a "Blessing of Civil Marriage".   Which we did.   Went to the county clerk, got civil marriaged, then later had an Episcopalian "Blessing", which for all intents and purposes was just like a wedding (which made my grandmother very, very happy...she got to see her oldest grandchild finally walk down the aisle, in a "wedding" dress, though not white.)


See above. This is the law and has been since long before any ancestor you've ever met was alive. All marriages are civil contracts with the state. Churches, mosques, synagogues, and other places of worship have religious ceremonies that they call "weddings", "sealings", "celestial marriage", "bindings", and other such terms, that may have all sorts of religious meaning, but have no legalmeaning.
As with dletter, you're suggesting the situation we have now, but changing the names because... stigginit? The only two reasons to change the names are "fark the gays" and "compromise with the bigots", which work out to the same thing.
 
2020-10-21 6:36:43 PM  

Dewey Fidalgo: tekmo: Marriage statutes allow the parties to choose the form of solemnization ceremony they prefer. Many people choose a religious ceremony, but a religious ceremony is not required.

No.   I want the religious service to be a separate thing.   The marriage or civil union or whatever is the legally recognized one.   If you get married in a church without going through the separate civil, secular marriage, it doesn't count as a marriage, for tax purposes, medical, etc.


That is literally the law now.
 
2020-10-21 6:39:26 PM  

Dewey Fidalgo: Fine...are the other contracts required to be filed at the county clerk's office to be valid, because the marriage "contract" is.


See, e.g., the registry of deeds.
 
2020-10-21 6:48:33 PM  
This is along the lines of the Catholic Church accepting that divorce is necessary as a civil institution (and not excommunicating you if you get one), but not letting divorcees get married unless their previous marriage is nullified.

In practice it's a useful, positive step, but it's not a change in how it thinks marriage within the Church should work.

Also keep in mind that in some countries where marriage was very much defined by the Catholic Church (like in Spain, where I used to live), there 25+ years ago there were movements by heterosexual couples to get civil unions written into law because they wanted to get married without the church's involvement.  I don't know if there was any of that in Argentina, but it means that someone like the Pope might think civil unions are still a popular idea, not realizing that those of us married outside of the Church are just calling it and thinking of it as marriage nowadays.
 
2020-10-21 6:49:29 PM  

Trayal: "What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered."

This old argument again? "You can have the benefits of marriage but don't you dare call it 'marriage!'" The hubris endemic to any organization which claims a monopoly over the definition of marriage is staggering. I guess we should also revoke the marriages and issue 'civil union certificates' for all straight atheist couples? Or all non-catholic couples?

They need to get over themselves. Any such 'separate but equal' type arguments reveal them for what they truly are.


Alot of drama could have been avoided if the government got out of the marriage business all together.  Everybody, gay or straight, gets a civil marriage (aka civil union) for the legal recognition required.  Marriage stays in the realm of religion, whether that's Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or Pastafarian.

It's how many countries around the world already operate.  You can get a civil "marriage" aka civil union (but still known colloquially as a marriage), which some churches, especially catholics won't recognize.  Or you can get a church marriage, that the state doesn't recognize.  Or you can do both.

If you really want separation of church and state, why do you want churches involved in the legal aspects of marriage - including who is entitled to it?  And why do you want the state involved in the spiritual aspects of marriage, if you believe in that sort of thing?
 
2020-10-21 7:39:34 PM  

Lamberts Ho Man: Trayal: "What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered."

This old argument again? "You can have the benefits of marriage but don't you dare call it 'marriage!'" The hubris endemic to any organization which claims a monopoly over the definition of marriage is staggering. I guess we should also revoke the marriages and issue 'civil union certificates' for all straight atheist couples? Or all non-catholic couples?

They need to get over themselves. Any such 'separate but equal' type arguments reveal them for what they truly are.

Alot of drama could have been avoided if the government got out of the marriage business all together.  Everybody, gay or straight, gets a civil marriage (aka civil union) for the legal recognition required.  Marriage stays in the realm of religion, whether that's Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or Pastafarian.

It's how many countries around the world already operate.  You can get a civil "marriage" aka civil union (but still known colloquially as a marriage), which some churches, especially catholics won't recognize.  Or you can get a church marriage, that the state doesn't recognize.  Or you can do both.

If you really want separation of church and state, why do you want churches involved in the legal aspects of marriage - including who is entitled to it?  And why do you want the state involved in the spiritual aspects of marriage, if you believe in that sort of thing?


Letting religions have a monopoly on the definition of marriage isn't getting state separated from religion, it's giving religion veto power on how the state operates.

It literally already is a secular institution. That religions decide to have a ceremony also doesn't change anything.
 
2020-10-21 8:06:27 PM  

dkulprit: 1funguy: dkulprit: Drank_the_40_water: Tomahawk513: severedtoe: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.

That's not exactly true either.  Annulments aren't common but they aren't exactly rare either.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/prin​t-edition/what-are-grounds-for-annulme​nt *

*Turns out I was wrong about the Orthodox comment above, still need a dispensation from the Bishop

CSB, my grandma got an annulment (effectively a pronouncement that it never happened) after 17 years and 8 kids! And that was 50ish years ago. Not as hard to get as they say it is...

Depends on your area, how large the local parish is, your social standing, and how well you know your bishop.

I know a lady whose husband was literally stealing from the church which got him kicked out and the bishop wouldn't allow annul her marriage...  so she got a divorce.... and he died right after the proceedings.

She is still diehard and still goes to mass, but isn't allowed to take communion.

shiat's wild.

If anyone did something like that to me it would make me question my willingness to be a part of what they believe in.

But there's a reason I'm agnostic.

She should be allowed communion. Catholics say a civil divorce does not end a marriage from the Catholic Church.
But he's dead. Which does end a catholic marriage.

So...
Saturday confession, Sunday communion.

Also her second marriage is not recognized by diocese either and the newer husband is also catholic and it is his first marriage.

He can take communion even though their marriage is not recognized.

Its farking stupid.


Hey, yeah, but how often do you get to beat god on a technicality..?

/ AMMIRITE!?
 
2020-10-21 8:09:14 PM  

dkulprit: 1funguy: dkulprit: Drank_the_40_water: Tomahawk513: severedtoe: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.

That's not exactly true either.  Annulments aren't common but they aren't exactly rare either.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/prin​t-edition/what-are-grounds-for-annulme​nt *

*Turns out I was wrong about the Orthodox comment above, still need a dispensation from the Bishop

CSB, my grandma got an annulment (effectively a pronouncement that it never happened) after 17 years and 8 kids! And that was 50ish years ago. Not as hard to get as they say it is...

Depends on your area, how large the local parish is, your social standing, and how well you know your bishop.

I know a lady whose husband was literally stealing from the church which got him kicked out and the bishop wouldn't allow annul her marriage...  so she got a divorce.... and he died right after the proceedings.

She is still diehard and still goes to mass, but isn't allowed to take communion.

shiat's wild.

If anyone did something like that to me it would make me question my willingness to be a part of what they believe in.

But there's a reason I'm agnostic.

She should be allowed communion. Catholics say a civil divorce does not end a marriage from the Catholic Church.
But he's dead. Which does end a catholic marriage.

So...
Saturday confession, Sunday communion.

Don't ask me.  She got remarried though, so that might be it.  He was definitely dead before she remarried.

She belongs to the Cincinnati diocese, she's not allowed to take communion.

Thats all I know, don't pretend to understand their whole wishy washy belief system.


Well for me personally, I just think we got in the habit of allowing too many rules get between us and god.
To paraphrase senator sasse, we are already asked to believe an awful lot about religion, what's one more thing?
 
2020-10-21 8:17:41 PM  

Dr Dreidel: PvtStash: jfivealive: Well since the office of the papacy is protected by infallibility, meaning it's not possible for the Pope to authoritatively pronounce a teaching that is untrue, does this mean if Catholics disagree, they will be forced to believe they will burn in hell?  Please tell me it does.

More or less.
but like all large enough religions, Catholics are no more in one unified lockstep religious practices belief than Jews are.

Catholics have a defined leadership structure, at least - The Pope is Boss of All Catholics (so you'll need to get the silver arrow to beat him), and there is no analog in Judaism (not in any major strain I'm aware of*).

There is a single Catholic doctrine that flows from the Vatican (although I suppose this dictum, like the results of Vatican II, will be ignored by the fundies**) - Jews can't even agree on whether or not the Talmud is controlling, and that was edited specifically to be a single-source 1500 years ago!

So I think I agree with your point, but I see it more like convergent evolution - we did not arrive at this place through the same processes or motivations.

// the Talmud, even if you smash together the two different versions (and can reconcile the contradictions, as many have), doesn't cover the entirety of law
* there are local "Chief Rabbis", but those are political/ceremonial titles (as in the UK and Israel), not religious
** in terms of adherence to doctrine, I'd agree that most lay Jews and Catholics share the cafeteria mindset


Only Roman Catholics. There are actually several recognized Catholic groups, some more defunct than others. Eastern Orthodox are Catholic, as are a couple other churches. There were actually five sees: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch. Rome and the Western Roman Catholics never really bought into the Pentarchy but on paper it existed until the Muslims conquered Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch. During that time, for example, Chaldeans and Coptics and Assyrian and Syriac and some other groups were considered Catholic, though the ones living outside the Empire were considered heretical even though they followed basically the same things, to the point that you have to talk about the Chaldeans (those in the Empire) versus the non-Chaldeans (those following the same rules as Chaldeans but outside the Empire) because there was no distinction made except by the Council that established the Pentarchy.

To this day each of the big three Catholic groups (Roman, Eastern, Oriental meaning Middle East) recognize claimants to the sees, and there are even some instances where there is agreement. I find it amusing that officially neither the Eastern Orthodoxy nor the Oriental Orthodoxy recognize a claimant to Rome. Rome apparently doesn't recognize a claimant to Constantinople, all three recognize claimants to every other see, however.
 
2020-10-21 8:34:26 PM  

whidbey: Drank_the_40_water: whidbey: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

Gay atheists get married too, though.  "Civil Union" is akin to "separate but equal."

Not in the eyes of the church (unless those rules changed since I was a kid)... It doesn't count unless a priest signed off on it.

The point is marriage is not "reserved" for Catholics.   That's a flat out bigoted statement right there.


Marriage is rooted in religion.

The problem is that we don't have a nuanced vocabulary. Our words around it are the language of religion. Marriage is a Catholic sacrament. When a Catholic leader speaks of marriage it is going to be in that sense. Weddings are the secular part, the celebration and community recognition. But those terms get swapped around all the time. Everyone says "we just got married!" not "We just got wedlocked!" or "we just were wedded."
 
2020-10-21 9:06:01 PM  
I heard some Catholic radio today.  The priests couldn't stress enough the separate but (not) equal sentiment of this thread.  Don't worry layman caller, Francis isn't going to let them really get For Real married, no.  We still can't stand homosex (unless it's priest on altarboy, of course).
 
2020-10-21 10:38:47 PM  

zepillin: Well pretty straightforward for a twisted mind just make sure it up what the f*** I'm done


What?
 
2020-10-21 10:39:36 PM  

zepillin: Okay I scrolled up I understand the confusion

I should have been more clear


If I misunderstood what you were trying to say I apologize.
 
2020-10-21 10:45:17 PM  

dkulprit: zepillin: Okay I scrolled up I understand the confusion

I should have been more clear

If I misunderstood what you were trying to say I apologize.


And I, I didn't really analyze what you were saying and just made a Flipent statement About other peoples opinions that really wasn't Relevant it is I That apologize to you The mistake was mine
 
2020-10-22 1:31:47 AM  

dletter: punkwrestler: dletter: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

There is certainly a case for this.  Government legalization of "marriage" is an archaic thing almost completely tied to religious institutions.  "Marriage licenses" should just be 100% replaced with "Civil union licenses" that have no bearing on being in a "romantic" or any other kind of personal relationship.  As long as both people are of legal age and not being forced into the union, the "why" shouldn't matter to get all of the legal benefits.  You can still get "married" in "your church", this doesn't replace that... you just would be getting a CU license from the govt. not a "marriage license"... but of course some people hate actually having a separation of church & state.

Not really all the laws in the country protect a married couple. Even gay people who were together before it was legal had their lives ripped apart, because even if they had powers of attorney and all the other legal paperwork, they often were barred from the hospital by the family and their possessions were stolen by the spouse that died family.

So yes marriage recognized by the state is necessary, unless of course you want to change all 11,000 federal laws that deal with marriage.

I don't know that "rip apart" as much as "rename" (all 'Marriages' are called 'Civil Unions' henseforth and forward), since the big "sticking point" seems to be around the term "marriage"... give that back to the "church".

Of course, doing that would then uncover that some just want to browbeat LGBTQ people, with "legal marriage" just being one way they have to do it.   Which is why they care to keep that specific wording legally.

But, it may be that you can't just "wave a magic wand" about changing one word to two in the laws.


Why should the Christians get to appropriate a term that was in use before Christ? It's been an understood term now for ages and that is what everything is based around federal laws, state laws, benefits, society....


Why should we be forced into a separate but equal term.
 
2020-10-22 3:08:37 AM  

dkulprit: MIRV888: dkulprit: Ah trying to keep the church relevant.  He's seen the assignment shift in younger demographics either not caring if people who love eachother getting married or outright support it.

How are you going to keep people in the church, and by extension keep them paying into the church if they refuse to join or stay due to their outright refusal to get with the times?

This isn't some grand gesture because he cares.  This is an attempt to keep the spice (cash) flowing by making them seem inclusive while not actually doing any of it.

It's purely a PR move.   Younger generations are all in, but even amongst older populations it is still at 60+% approval rating.

So as the older generations die off we're looking at a huge amount of support amongst younger generations and they're not going to stay in or join a church that is outright hostile to it.  This is them attempting to stay relevant/functioning and not actually caring.  If the shift hadn't happened he'd still be against it.

I'm pretty sure the 1600ish year old institution, which is accepted globally as a nation state, has loot. 
Keeping the church relevant?  Yes
Fund raising? No

You think relevant and dwindling numbers wouldn't effect their bottom line?

Parishes are already going bankrupt.

Membership and continued tithing is what keeps them running.  Its what keeps the Vatican's coffers full.

That's like saying a business who has billions in assets is immune from going bankruot if they lose members because they have billions in assets.  Sure they can stay afloat for a while if they sell off assets, but that wouldn't keep them afloat forever.

The catholic church is a money hungry orginization.  If you think they only care about their membership because of souls you are sadly mistaken.


You do understand there are other countries besides 'Murca right?  1600+ years.  Nation state.  One Billion members.  Say it over and over a few times.  Just because Catholicism is failing in 'Murca, doesn't mean they are broke.  It's not a business.  It's a religion.
 
2020-10-22 4:20:26 AM  

eKonk: "Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God," Francis said

Holy fark! An acknowledgement that homosexual people are....people?


"What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered."

Damn it. So close. What we have to have is equality. If you are supporting a division between "marriage" and "civil union", you are saying the two are not equal. Now in your religious fantasy world, I'm fine with that. In our legal reality, it simply doesn't work. Still, I'll take this as a step in the right direction.


The government has no business being involved with "marriage" in the first place.  Legally all unions should be civil unions.  If you want a guy in a funny hat to recite Iron Age myths, wave his hands, and provide a religious endorsement making it a marriage then good for you.  That should have no legal weight.
 
2020-10-22 6:21:34 PM  

tekmo: Not marriages. Of course not.

The PR Pope here is advocating on behalf of OTHER governments to create laws that relegate gay people to separate-but-equal "civil unions."

He won't make these laws in the Vatican, of course. Even though it's entirely in his power. Nope.

And he also now claims he "stood up for" civil unions when he lived in Argentina.

Which is a lie.

He was a vocal opponent of marriage equality in Argentina, in pretty offensive terms. There are some who claim that he privately said he was okay with separate-but-equal.

That is not "standing up for X."

Francis is a fraud. Don't be suckered.


You should know what the hell you're talking about before you spout off.

First, he's not advocating for any separate but equal BS.  He used the term civil union to distinguish between what the church does (sacraments) and what the state does (protects rights).  If he used the word marriage then it would at the very best be confusing about whether he was referring to the sacrament or the legal protections.  The two things aren't even 'separate but equal'.  They are in no way, shape or form equivalent.  In north america we use the same word for both and since words are hard, people like you get your panties in a twist over something like this.  Lots of other places in the world actually do distinguish and separate what the church and the state do in regards to unions.  Pope Francis is specifically calling for states to put laws in place that protect the rights of gay couples, full stop.  He's not commenting on the sacrament whatsoever.

Second, he did stand up for it in Argentina.  He also made comments that were disparaging.  It's almost as if people's point of view can change over time... who knew.  Apparently not you.  This all BTW was pretty widely reported on back in 2013... you've had 7 years to catch up on that news.
 
2020-10-23 12:40:26 AM  
Headline made me laugh.
 
Displayed 222 of 222 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.