Noelreg: "Partner" seems a good alternative to "husband/ wife" and would save having to alter a lot of dictionaries.

English is already the most complex language to learn and use. It is sloppy to make it even more difficult by replacing the specific 'husband/wife' with the vague 'partner'.

@George ">>In which country does the Church have the power to not PERMIT a civil marriage of two non-Catholics?"

Of course I was referring to Catholic doctrine which doesn't permit marriage of two non-Catholics. That the Church is NOT lobbying the Government to have that particular rule of theirs legislated in civil law was rather my point.

--

@Runner "Talking about 'normal people ' is not a good idea when you accept that certain designed body parts are put in places obviously designed to get rid of waste. And you are questioning my views as ' normal'. "

But it's sauce for the goose, my dear Runner! Try to follow if your can...

You religious weirdos sure can dish it out, calling everyone "sinful" and "disordered" and whatnot as you do, but at the slightest suggestion that your mind is sub-par (which it is!) and you get all prissy and defensive!

Suck it up, princess. If you've got a glass jaw and feet of clay, then I suggest you keep your odious thoughts to yourself instead of spreading your muck on public fora such as this, where muck may get thrown back at you. Diddums.

Besides, homosexuality is perfectly normal. It is the Catholic church which is a manifestly abnormal, sick invention of ill-informed fools and unscrupulous powermongers who prey on the subnormal intellects of the willingly deluded such as you.

Oh, and by the way, the human body was not "designed" for anything, idiot! And my mind boggles as to where you "get rid of waste" if not through your pee-pee! Whatever method you're using to pass uring is DEFINITELY not normal, and you should seek help immediately!!

Cheerio, sweetie! ;-)

Runner do you have comment on oral sex, as you appear to have an issue with "body waste".

@Jimmy Jones
>>Catholic doctrine which doesn't permit marriage of two non-Catholics.<<
Well, to return to my example, it is not “Australian doctrine” but common sense that you cannot claim social benefits administered by Centrelink if you are not an Australian citizen (or resident).

>>It is the Catholic church … who prey on the subnormal intellects of the willingly deluded such as you<<.
If I remember properly, runner is not a Catholic, actually he is rather dismissive of the Catholic Church. It is people like me (and many others, including scientists like Georges Lemaitre, the co-discoverer of the Big Bang, or Gregor Mendel, the "father of modern genetics") who, in your eyes, possess “subnormal intellects of the willingly deluded”.

@George >>If I remember properly, runner is not a Catholic

Maybe not, but they sure do prey on the deluded such as Runner.

Anyway, I find the Bible a book of hate and an obvious fiction. I have little respect for anyone who sees it as anything other, no matter what sect of Yahwehism they choose to follow (or have thrust upon them).

>> It is people like me (and many others, including scientists like Georges Lemaitre, the co-discoverer of the Big Bang, or Gregor Mendel, the "father of modern genetics") who, in your eyes, possess “subnormal intellects of the willingly deluded”.

Did you not like being described as such? Did you feel that was a bit harsh and maybe a bit unfair, did you? Did it upset you a little bit?

Why do expect anything other than contempt when you proudly belong to an organisation which spends a disproportionate amount of its time teaching its adherents that homosexuals are "disordered", "sinful", "immoral"... and worse!

In fact, your leader recently instructed you all to believe that gay marriage threatened the "future of humanity itself". Talk about a propaganda war!

I think my childish insult just now (which is what it was) was NOTHING compared to the revolting epithets and slanderous accusations your church routinely engages in against people like me.

Have a think about that, then get back to me if you still think you deserve an apology.

Intriguing discussion. Thank you.

On the matter of Roman Catholic acceptance of same-sex unions, there does seem to be evidence of a slow but continuing shift. Not unlike other shifts where science has indicated certain teachings to be deficient. Emphasis on 'slow'.

The official teaching of the Church still regards same-sex activity as "intrinsically disordered". But there are now different interpretations emerging among theologians, bishops and others as to what this means.

Some claim "disordered" means "morally wrong"; others "complicated and difficult to understand"; others "different from the majority experience, but morally acceptable". There are yet other definitions of this vague term.

As claimed elsewhere, many within the Church accept privately that a majority of priests in most countries are practising homosexuals without whose ministry the Church could not operate.

Firm evidence for this, of course, is impossible to find. But the John Jay reports in the US and other studies do seem to validate this private understanding.

More importantly, Biblical scholars across the world in Catholic and Protestant traditions are confirming that Scripture does not in fact condemn all same-sex unions.

Awareness is gradually increasing that Scripture condemns abusive or offensive same-sex behaviour. But not faithful, monogamous unions.

Cheers, AA