Well done, Scotland

I hope so too. It's time this discrimination was over. The Catholic Church needs to move into the 21st Century. Not only with homosexuality but with contraception, abortion, women's rights and a host of other issues.

Also it might be a good idea if it followed it's own teachings and gave it's riches to the poor. Did you know that the host and blood have to be held in containers that are gold or at least gilt? Why? Wasn't Jesus a poor man? Would he insist on gold?

I am RC btw in case you think I'm just being anti-RC.

I agree the discrimination has to stop. You can't control who you fall in love with. I have never had a problem with anyone's sexual orientation - its their business not mine.

And marriage doesn't have to be a religious ceremony anyway. In that case why oppose it through the church?

What was I saying on another thread about interfering with other people's lives. Not even their own members...
They need to stop obsessing about sex, that's what they need to do.

I was married in a civil ceremony and I was glad when gay couples were allowed to have their partnerships recognised in the same way with the same legal conditions. I don't go to church, either.

But I don't understand why it is up to the various governments to allow gay marriages.
If the Church defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, surely the only institution that can change that definition is the church?
I can understand the anguish of Christian gay couples who would like their union to be blessed in church.

But why is it any business of the government to interfere with what is essentially a theological question? Should equality legislation override theology?
[ducks and runs for cover]

The government is not interfering in a theological question - civil marriages are no concern of any church.

And, yes, equality should over-ride theology, in my view!

Where did you get that about the host, Vampire? Silver is often used because it has a slightly antiseptic quality. The decorations and the communion vessels are nearly always gifts, often in memory of a loved one or loved ones. If people want to give valuable gifts to the church/religion of their choice, surely that's their right?

Greatnan is there a difference between a gay civil marriage and a gay civil partnership?

Gay people think there is. If not, why not allow it anyway? In my book, equal means equal, not equal but.......

Of course it is their choice, Lily - I would personally rather give to the poor and I thought that was what Jesus advocated. Did he really want his followers to erect huge cathedrals and fill them with treasures, while people starved? Weren't most big churches erected for the glorification of the man who funded them, rather than his god?

Thinking about what JessM said, the Roman Catholic church is sex obsessed isn't it. I hadn't noticed before.

I remember once going to a choir festival at wells when the chalices were all pottery!

The funny thing was that we had to say the Hail Mary before every lesson in Junior School, but when we asked what the word 'womb' meant we were told we were too young to know. Similar response when we asked what a virgin was. I suppose it is really quite amusing that allegedly celibate men should be making the rules about women's procreative activities.

Greatnan, I have no problem with civil partnerships I think anyone who has a live in partnership should have the same rights as the majority, insomuch as they shouldn't be penalised when one dies, their estate, should as in a hertrosexual marriage be unencumbered by Inheritance Tax and I am glad that is now the case. I would also like to see this benefit afforded to siblings who have lived together all their lives and who would also be liable for Inheritance Tax when one dies and possibly the other can't afford to live in the home any more. However, I think Hell will freeze over before the Catholic church would marry gay people and I wonder why they would want pursue a religious ceremony in what is after all a very conservative organisation, just look at their stance on contraception. I think they should put their energies into trying to deal with those who advocate violence towards them because of their sexual orientation.

I asked my father what a womb was. He answered, a uterus! That was ok. I knew what that was! I also knew what a penis was ( my little brother had one, lucky thing. ) but not a willy!

I agree with much of what you say, naNANA, and I too cannot understand why anyone would want to marry in a church that so obviously does not want them. However, I can see no reason why a civil marriage, exactly like that enjoyed by hetrosexuals, should be denied to homosexual couples.
I also agree that civil partnerships, in order to enable other types of couples to inherit, be next of kin, etc. should be allowed.

According to this article from the Guardian last year, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 gave same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities similar to those in a civil marriage.
One can only surmise, then, that if gay people believe that there is a difference between a partnership and a marriage, it must be to do with the spiritual aspect of a church marriage, since in law there is no difference between a civil partnership and a civil marriage.
I still do not see that it can be right for politicians to tell the Catholic Church how to define marriage.

People invented marriage for reasons of social cohesion and to prevent various problems.
It is right that people define what marriage is.
It is right that people tell their governments what laws they want.
It is right that governments make laws that their people want.
What has any of it got to do with any church? The church (any of them) did not invent marriage. People did.

Marriage is not a theological matter. Marriage is a social matter which it makes sense to make into a legal matter for the protection of its participants and, if any, their offspring.

The fact the The Church has 'taken possession' of marriage (or think they have) does not mean The Church has any say in the matter.

There is no point in getting steamed up about a proposal that hasn't been made - at least in England. The consultation about same-sex marriage, which closed in June (and I'm sure we discussed it then) was only about civil marriage and there was no intention to compel any church to conduct such marriages.

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage/

And according to the BBC web site, the situation in Scotland is similar.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18981287

The Church likes to get steamed up about what is none of its business though. That's what it does.

I think the media had picked up on wotsisname O'Brien's comments in Scotland. O'Brien is the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien takes same sex marriage row to the pulpits. Scotsman newspaper.

Greatnan Jesus also rebuked the disciples who complained that the woman who anointed him with expensive ointment should have sold it instead and given the money to the poor. All AMDG.

AMDG? Yes, I know that story, when Jesus said 'The poor you will have always with you' and I thought it was a very odd thing to say. Not up to his usual caring standards.