Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Scottish Catholic Education Service says equal marriage would ‘undermine teachers’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Awwwwww, diddums….

  2. They are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now!

    1. Has we have seen they never hesitated to involve children.

  3. Oh for God’s sake (as it were), will these idiots stop at nothing while they’re flailing around trying to find convincing arguments?

    How do they think Catholic teachers deal with non-gay people married civilly, or remarried Christians, or married non-Christians?

    They are free to believe marriage is a sacrament and can only be between a man and a woman within their church (bit silly IMO, but it’s their right to think so); that DOES NOT mean they can’t recognise what’s going on in the real world around them.

    1. Oh my… are you suggesting that the RCC is a tad psychotic… like, out of touch with reality?

      Who knew?? :P

  4. “Catholic Education Service” is an oxymoron.

  5. What they are really saying is: We want the privilege to continue indoctrinating the next generation with bigotry. These dunderheads just can’t lift themselves out of the first century.

    1. Robert White 1 May 2012, 6:49am

      Oh cummon… the damage that is the catholic church wasn’t around in the first century. It was the first encyclical council in like 377ce that started the damage.

      Don’t get all hyberbolic. They are stuck in the fourth century not the first…

  6. The only undermining that will occur is that faith schools will have to tell the children the truth. In other words that being gay is part of life, it exists and gay people have just as much right to marriage as any body else!

    1. The problem is they have, with the bible, got away with telling unproven truth *that’s lies* to people for centuries! So they think they can get away with this!

  7. WantsToKnow 30 Apr 2012, 1:28pm

    “Such policies would certainly require the teaching of marriage as a legal contract, rather than any doctrinal understanding of marriage as a Sacrament.”

    Oh, please…. CIVIL marriage IS a “legal contract”… RELIGIOUS marriage IS the “Sacrament of Matrimony”. There IS A DIFFERENCE!

  8. Next the Catholics will be complaining about interfaith marriages, complaining about inter-race marriages, insisting that children of religious parents are automatically sent to catholic schools…. Oh, hold on, ALL of the above ALREADY HAVE taken place.

    RELIGION does NOT own the term marriage – which is a state sanctioned contract that is sometimes takes place in a church. If a marriage fails, THE STATE dissolves the marriage via state recognised laws (NOT THE church).

    Human Rights MUST always over-ride corporate rights (yes, the church is a corporation).

    Catholics, why do you fail to recognise your own rules:
    1) Love thy neighbour as your own
    2) Just ye not lest thy be judged
    3) Turn the other Cheek

    1. Turning the other cheek is a phrase in Christian doctrine that refers to responding to an aggressor without violence. The phrase originates from the Sermon on the Mount in the New Testament.

      In the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says:
      You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
      —Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek

      1. Nice copy pasta.

        The point is – of course – who gives a damn what sky daddy was, we are talking about the secular law of the land as it applies to ALL people equally.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Apr 2012, 2:01pm

      It also insists that the children of a “mixed” marriage to be raised as catholics even if one of the parents isn’t of the faith. Bloody arrogance.

    3. I like number 3!lol

  9. ‘The commission, in its response to the consultation…”‘

    What “commission” is he referring to? Is it one of their pseudo committees set up by themselves.

  10. Where’s the problem? Catholic schools do not teach children about the biblical version of marriage (which allows incest and polygamy). Divorce has been allowed in the UK for a long time and that is against their definition of marriage so same sex mariage wouldn’t be any different. They are making themselves look desperate!

    1. FFS. Argument from ignorance. Catholicism isn’t a religion of the book but a religion with a book.

      1. Paul.Essex/London 30 Apr 2012, 11:33pm

        And yet they constantly still use said book to bash everyone else over the head.

  11. They’re getting so desperate now. They might even start saying gay marriage will lead to the apocalypse.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Apr 2012, 2:02pm

      They already believe that!

    2. “The end of civilisation ” is frequently quoted. Nutters!

  12. Rather worryingly having been out in Glasgow today I’ve seen numerous headline boards outside shops for The Herald with the headline

    “WARNING GAY MARRIAGE WILL HARM SCHOOLS””

    Subtly subliminal eh?

    1. Tim Hopkins 30 Apr 2012, 1:56pm

      The Herald is reporting that Scotland for Marriage have spent £15,000 (at least) on publicity this week in Glasgow in advance of Thursday’s election. They have printed 300,000 leaflets for distrinution to all houses, full of the same kind of misinformation that is described in this article. Just as in the US, their tactics against equal marriage have descended into outright dishonesty.

      1. I’m sure there are many more charitable uses of £15,000 that they could put this money towards.

      2. And I read that in The Metro. If it’s posted by hand needless to say I’ll be handing it back and telling them not to bother coming to the door next time

      3. @ Tim

        I’ve also read that story which originated in the Sun yesterday. It claimed Scotland for Marriage have spent £40,000 in their campaign – on other stuff as well as the leaflets. Although marriage equality is a matter for the Scottish Parliament and not local councils, they obviously feel they can send out a message to the Scot Gov if people listen to them and vote accordingly. But I honestly don’t think many people will listen to this bigoted campaign.

        Also, I read a few days ago that Cardinal O’Brien has claimed that the responses to the Scot Gov’s consultation are 2 to 1 against marriage equality. Have you heard anything along these lines?

        On the matter of faith schools, isn’t about time they were closed down or phased out or something? I really can’t see any good reason why children need to be taught maths and chemistry in a religious environment.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Apr 2012, 1:58pm

      It’s a form of hatred. We should demand they come forward with the evidence. There are several catholic countries with equal marriage, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Argentina. They should contact the governments of all four and ask for the proof instead of spreading lies and fomenting hatred.

      1. Tim Hopkins 30 Apr 2012, 2:15pm

        Of course they won’t do that because it’s not in their interests. They don’t care about the rights and wrongs of the things they say or of their tactics – they’ll do whatever they think will force the Scottish Govt into dropping the proposals. But the Scottish Govt can’t afford to be bullied into dropping a policy that is right and has the support of the majority of Scots and MSPs. The result would be to hand the religious right a veto; one that they would seek to use again and again, over sex education, contraception, abortion, etc.

        1. Giving in to these religious extremeists would be no different to negotiating with terrorists. In fact, they are no different to terrorists, in my opinion.

    3. Indeed, they’ve got a advert being towed around, passed it on the bus. One side advises people to find out their candidates view on marriage equality before voting. The other urges people to not allow MPs to interfere with marriage, with a big picture of a man in front of a couple with the hand out to block them. Very clever, the irony clearly lost on them of their interference

      1. Tim Hopkins 30 Apr 2012, 2:19pm

        Sounds thoroughly nasty – a big hand out to block a same-sex couple? These people really don’t care how many LGBT people they hurt do they? And they call themselves Christians.

        For a real Christian view on same-sex marriage, take a look at this:

        http://www.facebook.com/?sk=welcome#!/photo.php?fbid=10150782865617378&set=a.105794082377.92810.105780677377&type=1&theater

        1. No, a mixed sex couple. Almost as if to say a politician wants to block marriage itself for couples. Doesn’t say anywhere how the couple in question are affected, apart from an unwanted guest in the middle of their ceremony I suppose, but he can always be asked to leave. Shame the same can’t be said of this group

          1. Equality Network 30 Apr 2012, 3:55pm

            Not quite so nasty as I thought then, but completely misleading! However, this kind of campaign, the mobile ads, and the leaflets dropping through everyone’s letter box, is very hurtful to LGBT people and their families.

  13. Hmmm

    I suspect pupils at Catholic schools are fully aware of abortion and contraception, despite them not being taught in RC schools

    Whilst I am not in favour of faith based schools, why should same sex couples marrying cause any more of a problem for RC school teachers than the existence of condoms, the morning after pill of abortion services?

    In any event if same sex couples marrying causes RC teachers to feel uncomfortable – do I care, not one jot!

  14. I am very much in favour of marriage equality. The main reason being that it pisses off the christians so much. The equality bit is nice too, but anything which gets these pompous delusional bigots in a flap must be worth doing for that reason alone.

    Because while our society needs marriage equality, what it needs more is the removal of religion from public life. Root and branch. It needs to send an unambiguous message to religious groups that their brand of pernicious unevidenced nonsense has no place in the running of a civilised modern society.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Apr 2012, 1:56pm

      Couldn’t have said it better! I resent that a foreign cult is allowed to interfere in the political system of our country in matters that are none of its business. Hasn’t it learned nothing from the reformation and why it occurred? Obviously not. What this particular cult is doing is inviting anti-catholic sentiment. It better watch out, it might not like what it’s wishing for.

  15. What does the CES have to say about heterosexual registry office marriages – do they not teach about these already – and if not, why not?

    So, they choose not to teach about civil marriages between opposite sex couples – For reasons of indoctrination?

    Yet when it comes to same sex couples, they are not content just to omit teaching on it – they wish to prevent it – thats rampant and egotistical homophobia – led by clergy who have no concept of human emotions (celibate men!)

    Crazies!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Apr 2012, 1:52pm

      It’s called “hate”. Celibate men who know NOTHING about human relationships. If you ask me, a bunch of sociopaths. Their cult is morally bankrupt.

  16. Christo-fascist filth.

    We need to stop religions from programming more little robots and start making sure that all education is thorough, suitable and RELEVANT. Which means no blathering about bronze age hobgoblins.

  17. Could all this selective hokum be summed up as ‘we don’t want secular law and society to do anything which might lead to open discussion and questioning of our arbitrary beliefs in our own classrooms? You know – real education?’
    Funny thing about a lot of God-botherers – they always want to make their problems other peoples’.

  18. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Apr 2012, 1:50pm

    First of all, there is NO “sanctity” in a civil marriage. Civil marriage is NOT a sacrament and was NOT invented by the roman cult either. Who do these bloody people think they are? Who cares if they want to teach catholic children their faith, go ahead, nobody is stopping them, just don’t bloody well interfere in my civil right to marry that has nothing to do with their religion. Who do these people think they are? The roman cult, a minority religion dictating to the rest of the country and to the government?

    1. They are intellectually dishonest tyrants and cherry-picking hypocrites. Or, to put it another way, christians.

    2. Tim Hopkins 30 Apr 2012, 2:00pm

      The Scottish Government consulted not on civil same-sex marriage, but on civil, humanist and religious same-sex marriage, with humanist and religious groups having the right to choose whether to do it. As others have said, some churches choose to marry divorced people – that doesn’t stop the Catholic Church from refusing to do so. Neither does it stop Catholic schools from telling pupils what the Catholic Church’s position is on marriage and divorce.

  19. We still don’t teach that the world is flat or that it is the center of the universe which is what is described in that POS buybull, why would we continue to teach another falsehood?

  20. Why are catholics allowed to even teach thier backwards views of sex and relationships as the norm to children anyway? Schools should be secular.

    1. Agree. As if the primitive people who were so scientifically retarded tht they couldn’t explain why the sun rose have anything of use or relevance to say on a complex subject like human sexuality.

      Plus, they tend to teach that abstinence only drivel. Which deprives young people of the tools and knowledge they will need throughout their adulthood to keep themselves safer and improve their quality of life.

      But then the RCC just wants children to grow up and whelp more little catholics, it’s the business plan of the cult of Rome.

  21. The Catholics are teaching their people how to bully and harass gay students until they kill them selves. The Catholics are undermining society by teaching hate and discrimination and percustion of other human beings, which is a crime against humanity.

    1. If only those idiots would realise that! Despite all the real problems in the world they are heel bent on trying to stop equality!

  22. Archbishp of Taunton 30 Apr 2012, 2:35pm

    Taunton is now underwater, it’s obviously god’s punishment for homophobia.

  23. Religious organisations should be banned from running schools.
    Full stop.

  24. The phrase “clutching at straws” springs to mind…

  25. It is hardly surprising that Scotland’s most senior Catholic has these points of view. I would be absolutely amazed if he thought anything else to be honest.

  26. Archbishop of Taunton 30 Apr 2012, 3:36pm

    I’m curious as to what makes the Vatican believe they have the moral high ground on any issue, especially when it comes to children.

    I wonder if they also teach their partnership with the fascists in Spain, Italy and Germany during the 20th century.

  27. This is akin to saying that the Race Relations Act 1974 silences teachers from talking about the Bible on account of Biblical passages that promote anti-Semitism and racism.

    1. Archbishp of Taunton 30 Apr 2012, 6:06pm

      There are passages that promote anti semitism?

      1. Mel Gibson appears to think so…

  28. Marriage in church may well be a sacrament but marriage in a registry office is not. According to the Roman church such marriages are invalid. So what is their problem ? The law may recognise where they don’t. They have a history of accommodating themselves to reality so what’s the difficulty this time.

  29. wright gregson 30 Apr 2012, 4:52pm

    so, why is the state funding schools run by and for “religions”?
    i know in the UK it is different from the USA, but separate church and state.

    1. Archbishp of Taunton 30 Apr 2012, 6:10pm

      Difficult, since our Head of State is also head of the national Church.

  30. Illegally pressuring schoolchildren into signing a petition ‘undermines’ teachers. I really hope this investigation of the Catholic Education Service by the Department of Education sticks.

  31. Archbishp of Taunton 30 Apr 2012, 6:04pm

    We are approaching the Vatican the wrong way, if reports in today’s Independent are correct. All we need to do is ask Elton, Madge et aliter to slip them a few bob to drop their opposition, like the most reviled mobster who got himself buried in the Basilica a few years ago.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vatican-accepted-one-billion-lire-to-bury-crime-boss-in-basilica-next-to-former-popes-7689047.html

    1. I remember reading years ago that the Vatican were dragging their heels on annuling Princess Caroline of Monaco’s first marriage, which ended in divorce, until her father Prince Rainier threatened to stop giving them money and quick as a flash, they granted the annulment!

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 30 Apr 2012, 9:52pm

        Al.l that bling and Prada to support.

        1. You’re not kidding, Robin! When I was a wee boy and still a Catholic, our parish priest certainly didn’t hesitate to buy himself the best of everything – food, clothes, furniture, cars, holidays to California. It was quite disgusting, thinking back on it, and all paid for by the weekly collection.

  32. darkmoonman 30 Apr 2012, 6:21pm

    They meant “undermine the teaching of bigotry” … it’s part of the class Being More Judgemental 101.

  33. Sinnysinsins 30 Apr 2012, 6:43pm

    I went to a Catholic school. Not one teacher there would say no to gay marriage. They did not judge me nor the many other Gay and Bisexual students. Quite a few were openly supportive.
    Do not take this article as true for all Catholics.

    1. Never would Sinny…and nobody should. I have plenty of Christian friends who never judged me when I told them I was a pagan and that never changed when I told them I was gay. They excepted me for me and I love them for that. SO I personally would never tar all Catholics, Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc, with the same brush.

      And I am so pleased that you did have a nice experience at your school :)

  34. Scottish Catholic Education Service is losing even more intelligence and credibility than usual. What is it like bouncing along the bottom then eh? Enjoying the sensation of going backwards then eh? Keep it up and you will snooker yourselves up your own backsides in no time at all.

  35. Poor bloody buggers…ooops..I mean sods! lol

  36. Bisexual woman in Edinburgh 30 Apr 2012, 9:44pm

    How have Catholic schools been coping when it comes to letting the children know that every other type of marriage in this country except Catholic marriage has the option of divorce? It’s not as if they don’t already diverge in a massive, important way from mainstream marriage.

  37. No. It wouldn’t. They could still claim that you can’t get married as a Catholic unless you are a man and a woman. A civil marriage between two people of the same sex is no more relevant to the Catholic church than a civil marriage between opposite sex partners.

  38. Forget about marriage for a moment…if this is their attitude towards teaching (civil) marriage in Catholic schools I dread to think what they say about homosexuality!

    What do the CES tell their teachers to say when someone brings up the topic of homosexuality in class or in private?

  39. Robert White 1 May 2012, 6:46am

    It woulnd’t “stop them from teaching it” it would just, as you say, undermine the credibility of the whole theist position.

    So what’s your point?

    I don’t find the theist position worthy of credibility.

    To Quote Stephen Colbert: “But what if the facts themselves are biased?”

  40. Tell you what – lets look instead at homophobia, and those who suffer with that burden, and the possible relationship between them and their closet homosexual urges.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014 – “Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”

    Wow! How fascinating. A study that says a “bigot” ranting on a gay site for attention is most likely a closet case with self denial and poor self esteem issue? NO! Really?

    I bet my comment last longer than yours, Keithie-drunkie…. LOL!

    1. Thanks for reading closet case. It is heartening to know that my posts resonate, even with the intellectually challenged.
      I note that you were not able to successfully rebut any of the facts in my post. I therefore conclude that you are in agreement and therefore you are a closet case buffoon.

  41. “Clearly, there is something inerently dangerous about homosexuality”

    So you’re arguing that as abstinence before mutual monogamy is risk free compared to any other form of sexual activity, hetero or homo, then this is the behaviour that should be followed as their are no risks involved? Is that correct?

    1. Oh I can read. I just wanted to make sure your point was clear.

      So if we are to only engage in risk free behaviour, surely from the moment we are born we should be locked in solitary confinement with no food(risk of poisoning), no human contact(risk of disease), no ability to roam(risk of accidents) until we die within a few short days of being born.

      Although technically we should not be conceived in the first place as that brings risk of death for expectant mothers. So from today let us all promote Keith’s risk free living theory and watch the human race die out

      1. “I do hope you do not passon your harmful philosophies to any impressionable person.”

        But I am taking the lead from you. You wish people to engage in safe, risk free behaviours. So surely you must agree with the message outlined above. Only by total and complete abstention from any form of sexual behaviour and keeping all individual human beings locked in a solitary environment can the world truly be risk free for everyone. If people are kept seperate disease will no longer spread, people’s lives will only end by natural means, rather that at the hands of another, and lives would not be put at risk during pregnancy/birth

        Otherwise we would be nothing but hypocrites by arguing that people should not engage in some risk free activities but can engage in others would we not?

    2. “Did you know that homodeviant men are 44 more times likely to have AIDs than hetero normals?”

      Did you know that homophobic men like you Keith are 98 more times likely to have an erection at gay porn than normal men?

  42. So you agree to this point then?

    “Otherwise we would be nothing but hypocrites by arguing that people should not engage in some risk free activities but can engage in others would we not?”

    1. “Homodeviants are unnecessary risk takers since there is no absolutely safe way to have homosexual sex, even in a monogamous situation.”

      People who leave their homes are unnecessary risk takers since there is no absolutely safe way to avoid risk of things such as death or disease. Even if the chances are low the risk is still there. So again why are some risks ok but not others yet you are not a hypocrite?

      And FYI, I ain’t endorsing what I say. I’m just having a hypothetical discussion with you.

      1. @Kris

        Correct me if I am wring, but two gay guys who meet and are both virgins, fall in love and have monogamous sex are never going to contract any STI.

        How can our venemous little troll not understand this?

        Purely because it does not fit neatly with his homophobic mindset?

        It doesnt matter what orientation people are – if they are monogamous and have never had cause to have contact with any STI they will not contract one if they remain monogamous.

  43. Could all this selective hokum be summed up as ‘we don’t want secular law and society to do anything which might lead to open discussion and questioning of our arbitrary beliefs in our own classrooms? You know – real education?’
    Funny thing about a lot of God-botherers – they always want to make their problems other peoples’.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all