Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Catholic Church: ‘We recognise that gay couples make loving parents but they must be banned from marriage’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. we recognise that the Catholic church are good at rambling on about the imaginary man in the sky but they must be banned from influencing the law

    1. David Cary Hart 29 Jan 2013, 10:45pm

      I know nothing about UK law. Her in the US, we EXPLICITLY prohibit laws that recognize religion. That sure hasn’t stopped the bishops. These guys still think that they are part of a parallel aristocracy to which monarchs are obedient. It’s called HUBRIS.

      1. We’ve got double-trouble. We’ve got the Anglicans who think they are part of the government and their opinion should carry a lot of weight, and the Catholics who think they should be running some sort of world government !

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Jan 2013, 1:17pm

        The U.S. may prohibit the establishment of religion, but what about DOMA? That law in more than half the states is all religion based if you look a little closer. It may not stop catholic bishops but it certainly doesn’t stop republican politicians using religion to promote it’s agenda and platform to discriminate against LGBT people. Why is “In God We Trust” on the walls of court rooms, even on the currency? Isn’t that about government recognising a deity representing, Judaism, Christianity and Islam? The oath of allegiance was amended to include “one nation under God” wasn’t it? Why is Christmas Day observed in the U.S? Hypocrisy in my view.

    2. de Villiers 29 Jan 2013, 11:35pm

      It is a welcome move towards Fr Radcliffe’s who opposing gay marriage, states “this is not to denigrate committed love of people of the same sex. This too should be cherished and supported… The God of love can be present in every true love.”

      I wait for the church to move further. As written elsewhere, we are called to same-sex partnerships for our own sanctification. Cross-sex partnerships would not work because they would evade rather than establish the right kind of transformative vulnerability.

      The difference between members of a same-sex couple is not merely psychological but also embodied difference. Difference cannot be reduced to male-female complementarity, because that would leave Jesus a deficient human being; not needing a female other half to be fully human.

      Same-sex couples need no less sanctification than cross-sex couples. It is wrong in the name of holiness to deprive people of the means of their own sanctification.

      1. Religion is of no importance to me, nor are your strange ramblings. While alien to me, I do respect your beliefs, I just don’t think you should expect everyone to hold them true and have their lives ruled by and affected by them.

        Keep them where they belong, in your Church, not here, and not in a government that has to govern and set laws over a broad multifaith/multicultural society.

      2. This is not the place for mumbo-jumbo based on your unprovable, if well-intentioned beliefs. They would be much better directed at an as yet unpersuaded Catholic audience.

      3. you are utterly utterly addled.

      4. de Villiers 30 Jan 2013, 10:34pm

        It is a bit disappointing that people ask me to silence myself given that a fundamental part of liberal democracy is free speech. I should be as free as anyone else to express myself. My vote (if I were English) would have the same weight as any other.

        In any event, I was seeking to show how Christian thinking should not oppose same sex marriage.

        1. Then you should direct your thoughts to homophobic Christians. Nobody is saying you can’t post here. It’s just that what you’re saying here is like a cog trying to turn in the wrong sort of machine.

        2. de Villiers 31 Jan 2013, 11:15am

          > Keep them where they belong, in your Church, not here

          > This is not the place for mumbo-jumbo based on your unprovable, if well-intentioned beliefs.

          > It’s just that what you’re saying here is like a cog trying to turn in the wrong sort of machine.

          I do not agree that I am a cog in the wrong sort of machine. There may be many gay people who adhere to a religion of some sort who read these pages.

          They should know and understand that there are other gay people who share their positions and who properly are able to show why religion and gay life need not be incompatible.

          It is not just atheist or agnostic gay individuals who need to feel secure in their lives and communities.

    3. “We recognise that many same sex couples raise children in loving and caring homes.”

      Is that why the catholic adoption agencies were closed down rather than obey the law and allow gay couples the right to adopt?

      You see? We don’t forget your recent past.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Jan 2013, 1:19pm

        We also don’t forget their hypocrisy with this latest, disingenuous placation. Now it’s trying to imply that the government opposes CPs for heterosexuals as a means to justify them for gays only and to be seen as being in support of them for gay people as long as they don’t call it marriage. Bloody liars, bigots and hypocrites all.

  2. More of the same Bigoted homophobic hogwash as before .Claiming to be for equality,yet pushing a system with seperate rights.Anyone remember a few years back.When John Paul read to the Christain Churches of the time .that while it was ok for them to consider themselves Christain only the Catholic Church had the right to teach about Christain Doctrine.Because it was the only true Christain Church.Read by Pope Paul written by the present day Pope. The natives of North America have a phrase for it. Paleface speak with forked tongue“.

  3. Seem like they will try saying anything to get their way

    1. They tried to be the nasty ones and didn’t work, now they are trying to be the nice ones.
      All for the fear of losing their influence and power. True hypocrites.

  4. GulliverUK 29 Jan 2013, 9:43pm

    Nice try. Now that they’ve lost they cosy up and try to convince us we’re being unreasonable – but contrast that with the absolute hate and bile spewed out by their rotweillers, like Cardinal O’Brien, and the linking of our relationships with incest, polygamy, deviant behavior, and peadophillia.

    Are they really so naive that they think we would ever forgive them? Not in my lifetime, even if I lives for another 100 years.

    No minister or group like Stonewall, speaks for us, and nobody tells us that we only asked for Civil Partnerships. We NEVER asked for Civil Partnerships but for full recognition, which means full equality, which means full marriage equality.

    But thanks for acknowledging we make good parents – we already knew that and many surveys proved it — and it’s completely at odds with the rampant homophobia saying we were a danger to children, children would be confused, bullied at school, disadvantages, it was child abuse, and all the other nasty hateful things.

  5. So, two people get married. Regardless of their gender or baby-making capabilities, what difference does it make to anyone else in the world?
    None.

  6. …….after realising they are in danger of being seen to incite hatred of a minority group.

    Which they are. Constantly.

  7. ...Paddyswurds 29 Jan 2013, 9:54pm

    Absolutely, it WILL change the definition of Marriage from a discriminatory institution of the family not available to the children of Gay people according to the fantasy cults of personality at Rome and the CofE….. It will transform Marriage form a hugely discriminatory institution wher a large minority of the population were denied the same right as verey one else… even though they are expected to pay the same taxes as everyone else….

    1. ...Paddyswurds 29 Jan 2013, 10:03pm

      The bl**dy typos… You’ll know them when you see them… Pink News just a small tweak will allow posters to edit their comment after posting as is possible on most comment pages that are well run…..?

  8. Where do the explain precisely the harm to married heterosexuals if LGBT people are allowed access to marriage licenses? I don’t see how granting marriage licenses to LGBT people will harm a single heterosexual marriage. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine how expanding the number of married couples can do anything other than to make marriage more respected and wide-spread.

  9. A lot of the arguments are very strange. We have Civil Partnerships now and they can’t discriminate now, and if they don’t opt-in to provide Civil Partnerships they are not being treated less favorably now.

    Ignoring the nutty crackpot Catholic QCs who currently provide biased misinformed legal gibberish to the Catholic church, real lawyers who know what they’re talking about say the protections are more than sufficient. In fact, Section 202 protection for Civil Partnerships was described as “satisfactory” by the CofE – and for other churches and marriage it will be the same OPT-IN system.

    The law is clear, if you provide services to the public, you provide them to ALL the public without discrimination, that’s the same whether the legislation goes ahead or not. So most of the arguments are fictitious made-up to pad the document out.

    We don’t care what the Catholic cult thinks – it’s tiny here – there were more Humanist marriages in Scotland in 2010 than Catholic ones.

  10. Theyve cooked their goose now!

    What they are saying is that some kids parents can’t get married-making the kids “little bastards”

    I thought the Catholic Church didn”t agree with children “out of wedlock”??

    Make up your minds!!!

  11. I swear to God, these people and their wacky arguments are driving me to drink.

    On the same day that our homegrown sacredotal idiots are advancing this argument to lawmakers in England and Wales, their equally intellectually vacant ex-colonial fruitloopilicious brothers and sisters in the US are trying to make the exact same argument in the Prop 8 or DOMA cases in the American Supreme Court.

    It honestly makes me yearn for the ‘good old days’ when the Jesuits had control of the Vatican instead of these Opus Dei lackwits. At least a Jesuit would have the good manners to smirk knowingly after trying to advance such a morally bankrupt argument.

    With all the money that the Catholic church is carefully not using to end world hunger, helping little children, loving their neighbours as themselves or doing any one of the myriad things Jesus said were a good idea, at the very least they might try to pay for some decent legal advice.

  12. The same old guff. It’s all slowly turing into white noise in the far background.

  13. David Cary Hart 29 Jan 2013, 10:42pm

    So much for the dollars that Opus Dei spent on the Regnerus study.

  14. Yeah right, we’re really good at being parents but by the way we’d rather close down all our Catholic adoption agencies rather than allow you gays to adopt a child!!!!

    What utter hyprocrites……Can’t quite work out the motive of this bizarre statement about gay couples being good parents, they’ve never said anything like that before and their actions tand the rest of their statement doesn’t support that line…..

  15. ““threatens subtly, but radically, to alter the meaning of marriage over time for everyone.”

    Yeah right – like suffrage for women threatened democracy. Not.

    Why don’t they just take that great big step right into the 21st century and stop scraping the barrel for ‘reasons’ to discriminate against LGBT people? It’s getting pathetic now.

  16. They have put careful thought into this statement and have made an attempt at being reasonable. But they just can’t find any reason. “Slippery slope” and “alter the meaning” are completely non-specific. As they are now acknowledging that GLBT couples can make loving families, WHAT is the ACTUAL objection? I really am dying to know.
    The silliest bit is the “not condoning us but not condemning us”. Er… what kind of policy is that exactly?
    They’re on the ropes!

  17. Pinknews, you say “The Catholic Church opposed the introduction of same-sex civil partnerships but it seems now to support the maintenance of a separate relationships system for same-sex couples”.

    Could you provide evidence to support the above statement? An official vatican document explains why the catholic church is vitriolocially against legal recognition of same sex unions: marriage or otherwise…

    This following quote is taken from following link, “Section II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEM OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS”, Bullet Point 5 (end of 2nd paragraph)”
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

    “Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of EVIL is something far different from the toleration of EVIL” .

    1. from the aforementioned vatican link:-

      IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS (from the aforementioned vatican link)

      IV. When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth…. This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.

      1. Edmund Rodgers 30 Jan 2013, 9:32am

        Shameful – the Roman Pope is acting like a party whip.

  18. Social change sometimes occurs very rapidly indeed. Even to people who have held out against it for centuries. Perhaps within my lifetime we will see a tolerant and progressive pope officiating in person at same-sex marriages. With her wife looking on approvingly.

      1. But how old is that document? It is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, not Pope Benedict.

      2. Darren Theoret 30 Jan 2013, 1:19pm

        I can’t believe they have the nerve to call love evil! Especially after all the evil they have spread throughout the centuries! They think they are in G-d’s good books but they have blood dripping from their hands. from the crusades, Inquisition, genocide of natives around the globe, violence against women and molestation of children. There is no end to the demonic, insatiable desire for power and status. But on judgment day, I will not have a tear for them. Their judgment will be harsher than any other as they they claim to speak for G-d, whose name they are not even worthy to speak. With good conscience, we will continue to love and live a full life and not bow down to the whore.

  19. “Our opposition to same sex marriage is not based in discrimination or prejudice; it is based in a positive effort to ensure that the unique social values currently served by marriage carry on being served.”

    Translation – We aren’t discriminating against Gay couples, we just don’t want them to have the same rights as straight couples.

    This is a major contradiction. They’re basically saying we aren’t discriminating and then in the same breath they are discriminating. Their arguments are becoming desperate and thin.

  20. Frank Boulton 30 Jan 2013, 6:28am

    Civil Partnerships, also called Civil Union in other countries, are not equal to marriage. If Catholics argued that white people could marry, where as other races had to have Civil Partnerships, no one would take this for equality. Civil Partnerships are not equal to marriage, because even in countries where same-sex marriage is recognised, Civil Partnerships solemnised abroad are not necessarily recognised.

  21. It is nice that they finally acknowledge that same sex couples provide a loving and stable home, so I guess at least they are now, perhaps, listening to reason on this part of the issue.

    Although, as usual they are contradictory: “Marriage has, over the centuries, been the enduring public recognition of this commitment to provide a stable institution for the care and protection of children, and it has rightly been recognised as unique and worthy of legal protection for this reason”. But not if you are gay, apparently

    Now, they need to start realising that marriage is not purely about procreation.

    1. I love that bit.

      Wilfully celibate unmarried men waffling on about the importance of marriage and procreation.

      Hypocrisy of the highest order.

  22. Dave Ballance 30 Jan 2013, 9:13am

    As if the Catholic Church has any claim to a moral high ground. After the priest sex-abuse scandal which is now obvious that it was a system-wide problem in the church and the church’s hierarchy actively working to hide it they should be shunned. Why any Catholic can go to mass and tithe to that corrupt organization baffles me.

    Oh, and vow of poverty my ass. I’ve been to the Vatican. No poverty or sacrifice going on there.

    1. Well, they have stopped accepting credit cards… must be something to do with not being charged interest…..

  23. WE recognise that the Catholic Church is incredibly backward and homophobic so they must be stopped from practising their drivel filled services.

  24. They say “We note that same sex couples already effectively enjoy equivalent legal rights as heterosexual couples by virtue of the Civil Partnership Act 2004″ yet at the time they bitterly opposed it, and now are using it as a reason to keep the status quo. Bunch of self hatings fags in dresses are just weird.

  25. I get so annoyed by their holier-than-thou rhetoric about marriage being a one-man one-woman sacred institution to propagate, somehow CREATED by the Christian Church.
    It’s almost as if no other culture had ever even considered marriage or something similar.
    It’s almost as if they’re forgetting that Christian marriage in it’s original form was more about ownership and power; you could have multiple wives. Wives were basically slaves. And the husband would ‘sew his seed’ with many different women.
    Marriage in it’s modern form belongs to the state; multiple religions have their beliefs about what it consists of, but in this day and age that should have no bearing on the law.
    Finally, what really gets me annoyed is that their views on marriage have always changed to fit with the times. Women’s rights, interraciality, monogamy, divorce, etc. Yet apparently this is one step too far?

  26. Sorry – but who give a flying f**k WHAT they think? They don’t run this country. They don’t represent me or my interests. They don’t pay tax and they are not politicians. Just get over the fact that you have lost the power and control you once enjoyed. The game is up. Move on and stop peddling your vile homophobia. Adolescents take what you say as a licence to bully.

  27. “Our principal argument against this is that it is not unequal or unfair to treat those in different circumstances differently. Indeed, to treat them the same would itself be unjust.”

    Catholic logic: Equal rights for everyone is unjust…(sigh)

  28. ”existing legal link between the institution of marriage and sexual exclusivity, loyalty, and responsibility for the children of the marriage.”

    Say the [supposedly] celibate men who have chosen to turn their back on marriage, who are part of an institution currently reeling – all over the world – with scandals relating to just how much responsibility was taken over children in their care.

    You couldn’t make it up.

  29. These old celibate, non marriaged.,women hating BIGOTS are at it again. Spewing their vile version of family and Christian values. Once the poster boy for every crime syndicate in the world. Now they want their hate filled message to fill the schoolyards of the world,creating a world of mini-me bigots to go about bullying our children. Isn`t it time to erase this entity from the face of the earth.So the world may live in peace and harmony.

  30. Here is my translation –
    ‘We know damned well that there is no empirical evidence to support any of our drivel but our shiny robes and pointy hats depend on asserting the same old hokum.’

  31. They never make a point. They assert things (treating people equally with regards to marriage would be unjust), but what the hell does that even mean? How would it be unjust? These god-addled fukkwits are utterly hatef-filled and clueless.

  32. Straight want Civil Partnerships? Seriously? They want a downgraded version of marriage?
    Talk about “they’ve got something, so I want it just because I do.”

  33. Piss of Catholic church you do not OWN marriage.

  34. Marco Luxe 1 Feb 2013, 2:56am

    I learned at law school to start with your strongest argument, but the Catholic position paper starts with something so nonsensical that it looks like they’re not even trying. They open with a claim that the bill “seeks to break the existing legal link between the institution of marriage and sexual exclusivity, loyalty, and responsibility for the children of the marriage”. Don’t gay couples want that exact legal link too?

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