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  
•       •       •

3725 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 21 Oct 2020 at 11:09 AM (12 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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."
 
Displayed 50 of 222 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


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.