Should the catholic church be asking schoolchildren to sign this petition?

Yes, O.K. littlemo. I should have been more careful in my wording of the original post.

Yes, but refering to 'children' could make less well informed people think that children were being asked to make uniformed decisions before signing the petition. As this thread is meant to be about schoolchildren signing the petition, I just wanted to make this clear.

Bags With you all the way.

littlemo - it has been accepted that children under 16 could not sign the petition but many of us feel that the letter should not have been read out to pupils at all.

Hicaz, I don't think that over 16s (petition is only open to over 16s) would appreciate being called children or the implication that they are not aware of both sides of the debate. Young Catholics are not sheltered from the rest of the world and even in school, especially at age 16 or over, are encouraged to debate the pros and cons of many issues.

Maybe we should have an irony emoticon. I know just what it would look like. A little iron. How ironically apt for this site would that be Bags ?

Irony flag emoticon

Quite. And then there are all those dreadful people who somehow manage to have children without ever getting married, and to raise them as responsible citizens.

That's what I meant "absent", not v well expressed that day.
There was an american evangelist being interviewed on the radio saying that somehow homosexual marriage would detract from his marriage which was all about raising children. I wonder if heterosexual marriages where there are no children also somehow devalue his holy union? Seems to the be weak point in the "marriage is for procreation" argument.

Quite so, hicaz. Fortunately, there are many programmes on TV which young people might watch, which give a more balanced view of homosexuality.

I hope we haven't lost horatio - perhaps he has been swayed by our persuasive posts.

I doubt very much if children can make an informed decision without hearing both sides of the debate and I also doubt very much if the Catholic Church would allow gay people to talk to the children to balance the debate.

JessM I think marriage in most cultures was also a means of ensuring that a man knew that any children were his (married women didn't have many opportunities for adultery). This also ensured that property was passed to a genuine son. It's just control again.

He seems to be a darned sight better than JFK too! What a pity he is so often stymied by the Republicans and religious pressure groups.

Good point nanaej. Marriage is used in many cultures to try to ensure that men bring up their biological children - once married women are supposed to be "faithful".
Another way of looking at it is that it is a way of encouraging men to be responsible and not run round town impregnating and not taking responsibility.
It is all these things, but the "religious" aspect of it is a method of social control that encourages monogamy. All the talk of holy sacrament is post hoc justification.
Did Jesus ever have anything to say about it?
And "go Obama" - he is a long way from perfect but he is a darn sight better than the republicans...

Four cheers for Obama! He is pushing for same-sex civil marriages in the USA.

You made me think, nanaej. My DS2 and his partner have been together now longer than my husband and I - married in Christian ceremony - managed. You can't measure commitment by the ring on the finger.

Agreed, nanaej There are people who have never signed a single piece of paper who are married to all eternity, and others who went through all the magnificence of church nuptials who would have been more honest had they admitted that they were only really after a brief thrill.

As for getting schoolchildren to sign a petition they do not understand, about relationships they have not experienced and people they have never met ..... words fail me.

Random thoughts on this post!
As Christian marriage was originally about transfer of property ie a father handing his daughter/property to another man it is , IMO, rather outmoded.

If someone has a strong faith and wants to make marriage promises in front of their god I have no major problem with that. If that faith is anti -gay or sees it as a deviant lifestyle I am not sure, if I was gay, that I would want to be part of that faith group.

I do not think that one person's faith should interfere with another persons lifestyle.

Children ( under 16) should not be signing petitions unless they have a real understanding of the implications and the opportunity to discuss / hear both sides of the argument.

I got married in a church to please my mum! One daughter got married in a civil and then humanist ceremony. One daughter lives in an unmarried partnership with the father of their two children. Think the chances of long term togetherness has nothing to do with the ceremony or lack of at the start!

You have to feel sorry for them really. It must be rotten to be so angry all the time.

Because they've been indoctrinated from birth to be narrow-minded and intolerant.

Why do some people think that no-one can be a good, law-abiding, sober, faithfully married, exemplary parent and citizen unless they subscribe to the exact rituals that they themselves believe in?

Big-endians vs Little-endians.

No one is trying to legislate that churches must marry gay people.
The law will be about register office weddings. Full marriage in law, for those who want it, whether gay or straight. That is all.
Hoo-ha is because the churches want to stick their noses into the lives of non-members. As per usual.

I did press "post" Greatnan just before you did - mine appeared just before your previous post.

Unless you want even more of my bletherings.....

Elegran's post is there, Greatnan - 12.09.37

Elegran -I think you might not have pressed to post - could you let us know your full thoughts?