How much is Marriage worth?
Blogged by James Preece on 12th July 2012
For a while I thought The Freethinker was a satirical magazine poking fun at atheists, then I discovered it was for real. Anyways, they have some interesting statistics about the "War against Gay Marriage" in Scotland:
On Sunday, the posturing fool threatened the Scottish Government with an “unprecedented backlash” if it did not back down from its plans to legalise same-sex unions.
And he pledged to spend a further £100,000 on an advertising campaign against gay marriage. This is on top of the £50,000 the Church has already spent in its battle against marriage equality in Scotland.
[link]
I know it's not a competition, but I can't help wondering how the figures in England and Wales compare. If the six diocese in Scotland can manage £150,000 on a campaign against gay "marriage", how much have the twenty-two diocese in England and Wales spent?
Reader Comments
+5
Chrysostom said...
To revive a joke nearly two thousand years old (see Suetonius's THE TWELVE CAESARS -for his life of Nero) - What a pity that Cameron's father did not confine himself to a "gay marriage".
Our Lady Help of Christians - pray for us.
St Athanasius - pray for us
All Ye English Martyrs - pray for us.
St. Charles Lwanga and Companion Martyrs of Uganda, who died resisting homosexual rape - pray for us.
+
+2
Mockery of the Sacraments said...
LOL How Christian of you to wish that the child of God named David Cameron had never been born.
+
+9
John said...
I appreciate this website and the incisive and insightful comments. I particularly value James's comments regarding marriage as he speaks from not merely a theoretical perspective but also from an applied perspective. However, I do think that it is important to maintain ownership of language in the context of the current attack on Marriage. There is not, never has been and never will be a state of "Gay Marriage" it makes as much sense as saying that there will be a red that is blue. Marriage has always been defined as the union of a man and a woman for specific reasons. Those reasons are not because they are friends; the reasons are not because they physically desire each other; they are not even because they want to express their commitment to each other. The reasons are that this is what God wanted: a man should leave his mother and father and find an individual who can be a partner in "covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring."
If the state chooses to extend to other relationships an apparent similarity to marriage such that co-habiting individuals are accorded legal protection and even privilege, this does not alter marriage. I think we must take care not to accept the abuse of language that is so often the hallmark of transforming a bad thing into a good thing. Whatever homosexual couples want it should not be referred to as marriage by those who understand what this means. There will never be an occasion when a same sex couple can naturally create a child; such a union is naturally sterile. Regardless of how much good they each do for the other there never will be children unless science or the law intervenes. Science in the form of all that in vitro fertilisation entails and the law in the form of adoption.
It may be that this is the boundary that people understand but once again it is the failure to stem the inexorable tide of corruption that leads us to this point. As a Church we failed to stem the tide of fertility treatments; as a church we failed to stem the tide of artificial regulation of conception; as a church we failed to stem the tide of in utero homicide and we did little as our adoption agencies closed.
Now we will fight the usurpation of marriage and are we any more hopeful of success? Sadly, the consequences of some of these failures was very clearly seen in Humane Vitae. It is well worth revisiting and asking whether Pope Paul was more visionary in this respect than he is ever credited.
+
+3
shieldsheafson said...
The metaphysics underlying natural law theory that marriage is, not by human definition, but as an objective metaphysical fact determined by its final cause, inherently procreative, and thus inherently heterosexual.
Socrates: "And when the orator instead of putting an ass in the place of a horse puts good for evil being himself as ignorant of their true nature as the city on which he imposes is ignorant; and having studied the notions of the multitude, falsely persuades them not about 'the shadow of an ass,' which he confounds with a horse, but about good which he confounds with evil-what will be the harvest which rhetoric will be likely to gather after the sowing of that seed?"
Phaedrus: "The reverse of good (?)".
+
+1
New Friend said...
shieldsheafson
What you define is not marriage. It is the union between a man and a woman and it can be called whatever you like. If you want to reserve the term "marriage" within your own community for a bond between a man and a woman that's fine. Just allow those who disagree to make their own judgements in the same way. Same sex couples deserve to be given total equality and not to be discriminated against in any way. This is but a small step towards achieving that and you should be ashamed of your attitude towards it.
+
+1
New Friend said...
John
No-one will force you to change your beliefs, or to recognise same sex marriage within your own community. It is though quite wrong to claim that just because in the past marriage has meant the union of a man with a woman that this means it has to do so in the future. If enough of us decide that it is a desirable change, change it will.
This idea that marriage is all about pro-creation is transparent nonsense, an invention of those with a religious conviction for their own purposes. Marriage does not mean this for many, if not most, people. You simply don't own the word, or the right to define it and these attempts to control what other decent law abiding citizens can and cannot do is really doing your overall status and reputation no good at all. It is making you look quite reactionary in the eyes of many.
If the Church in Scotland can raise £150,00 why not spend it on something really useful like donating it to the Gates Foundation. I read Melinda Gates, a practising Catholic, has some interesting plans regarding encouraging the use of contraception in the third world. Much better use of the money!
+
+8
Scientist said...
It is not a case of religion, what is being asked is the re-definition of a word that means something. If society wishes to continue and build itself up, then children need to be brought into the world and their parents be culpable for their upbringing, thus ensuring a society that can evolve positively. The term for this is marriage. The unity of two people of the same genders achieve this. It may be termed something else but it is not marriage because it does not fulfill the criteria required for meaning of that word. It would be stupid to say that water be defined as marriage because it has hydrogen and oxygen in just like Sulphuric Acid, or Nitric acid. Words mean things, that is how we communicate what we are trying to say, it is foolish to re-create their meanings just because some people, who it can only be assumed have not realised this, think it is a good idea.
+
+2
Scientist said...
woops - The unity of two people of the same genders *cannot* achieve this.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Scientist
I, and lots of others, disagree with this analysis. You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. If in the end my view prevails then you are going to have to find another word to describe your concept.
Our understanding of the meaning of words is ever changing. It has been ever thus and is simply further evidence of evolution. You might hold back the tide for a while, time alone will determine that, but this tide is flowing all over the world and this change will happen, sooner or later. In a few years even the most blinkered Catholic will wonder what all the fuss was about.
+
+1
Teresa said...
Sure the meanings of words change over time due to 'evolution' - that is not what is going on here. This is a forced change. Evolutionary change does not need legislation. This change involves rewriting all legal and parlimentary documentation!
+
+1
New Friend said...
Teresa
Evolution most certainly what IS happening here. The changes proposed are following the maturing of public perceptions and are needed to allow them to proceed legally. There is nothing forced about it at all. It is all part of a logical process of inclusiveness and equality which has been evolving over the past few years.
+
Teresa said...
by forced I meant it didn't occur due natural process of time, but when a very large proportion of society who wishes to retain its current (and legitimate) meaning then it is also forced in that sense too!
+
Teresa said...
what we have here is the opinion of one section of society trumping the opinion of another. That is not the kind of evolutionary change which happens over time and usage!
+
+1
New Friend said...
Teresa
You have no justification whatsoever to make such a claim. In any case that is NOT how our system works. We vote in representatives to take decisions on our behalf for the simple reason that they can weigh up all the facts before making up their minds. We do not, thank goodness, rule by plebiscite. It never fails to amaze me how people plead for rule by popularity when it suits them, and call for a referendum on an issue, just as that really stupid Cardinal O'Brien did this week. Would you want a referendum on the death penalty? It is not the way we do things and nor should we. Only on constitutional matters should a referendum be considered.
+
Teresa said...
"new friend" please don't twist my words - I was not commenting on the validity of the political system! I was speaking purely about the way words change!! It is completely false to claim that this change in definition which is not wanted by a large part of the population is the same as the kind of change that happens over time and general usage! I am completely justified in stating that - it basic logic. Perhaps you could be courteous enough to read what I say and not what you think I say.
+
+1
Teresa said...
Of course, gay marriage could only be deemed an equality issue because the very word "equality" has been redefined to make two things the same that aren't.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Teresa
I perceive of no change at all to the meaning of "equality". I see it being more widely applied and narrow minded people resisting that, but those are quite different matters.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Teresa
I read your words and there is no twist put on them. You have no justification at all for making your claim. How does anyone know that it is "not wanted by a large part of the population"? Have you asked them all? It is just an opinion. Most probably don't care or are only now, because of the publicity, making up their minds. I have no intention of being discourteous but that is what you said and it is wrong.
+
Teresa said...
What rubbish. You placed great emphasis on correcting me on how the law works - something which I was not speaking about.
There is a great number of people complaining (more than you are willing to accept but that is not the point). When people are publicly resisting change then you cannot possibly liken it to the kind of change that happens over time and usage (which has no public resistance). I am totally justified in saying that, NF - no discourtesy intended from me either, but you simply cannot compare the change in definition of marriage to change due to time and usage (which is usually gradual and uncontested). The two are entirely different.
Feel free to disagree again if you wish, but I am over and out on this one now.
+
Teresa said...
oh dear - I did rephrase some of that as it sounded clumsy, but it did not save my changes!
+
+1
New Friend said...
Teresa
You may consider it rubbish, coming from your fixed position, but it surely cannot have escaped your notice that the debate underway in the UK on this issue is replicated in many other countries, some of whom have already made the move. This to me indicates that the shift in the meaning is in process, and is not something being forced upon us by the motivation of an imagined politically correct government. They are listening and responding to a worldwide trend, hence my remarks about the law.
You suggest that any gradual change is never contested but that cannot be true. Some with particular viewpoints will resist, as in this case, but once the logic has taken root in the minds of the majority it will happen. In our country the debate is only now really being joined and the logic examined.
+
Teresa said...
You are still not reading my posts properly - my first statement referred purely to you correcting me on something I did not comment on
As for the rest I still disagree with your analysis.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Teresa
Having re-read all your posts I would suggest it is much more that you are not reading my answers properly. Best perhaps to leave it there rather than repeat myself.
+
Teresa said...
I am reading and disagreeing.
I am not answering things you haven't written
+
Teresa said...
...and ditto - I am tiring of repeating myself!
+
Teresa said...
correction - words change "due to their own 'evolution' "
+
+15
Phil Atkinson said...
NF:
Since you've managed to convince yourself that abortion doesn't involve killing anything, I'm not surprised you've convinced yourself that marriage can be redefined to suit whatever's in fashion at the moment.
It must be a pain to be a slave to whatever's modish. The eternal truth of the Church's teaching really does set one free, you know.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Phil
I am no-one's slave and pride myself on not being a member of any group or having to follow anyone's ideas. I am a free thinker. Which is in total contrast to almost all the viewpoints expressed here which sound as though they have been written up in a little red book and just regurgitated.
I haven't just convinced myself about redefining marriage. I have listened to the arguments for and against a change and considered them. Many for the first time. The more I read the lather being generated against, the more I realise what nonsense it contains. I am quite sure I am not alone which is why I think the campaign against is actually self defeating. The more you protest the more likely it is that change will happen. Apathy was your biggest opportunity but you have spurned it.
+
+3
Christian said...
Hi
I understand the Church's position on gay marriage and so I see that proposals for change encroach upon the Church's teaching. However, this is not the Church's only teaching.
I may not be Catholic - or even theist - but when a Church can spend "£150,000" on adverts against legislative change to marriage constructions in a world where "there are 44 million child labourers in India"; "More than 150 countries use torture"; "There are 300,000 child soldiers fighting across the world" and "There are 27 million slaves in the world today" I cannot help but feel a disregard for the true intention of the Catholic Church.
The Church, I am led to believe, is here to 'spread the word of the Lord'.
Shouldn't the emphasis and finance, then, be on the sheer acts of cruelty, injustice and misery across the world than a picky ad campaign against gays. No wonder the church is accused of prejudice.
+
+4
Catherine said...
I do not have any precise figures but I imagine the combined total of expenditure of the 22 dioceses on the people they employ full time and part time to promote marriage and family life must come to approx £0.5m pa
ok so its not all our political campaigning but it does illustrate some [though not nearly enough] investment in this critical pastoral field
+
+9
Mark Dobson said...
Do you have any idea at all of how much the Church spends on fighting child labour and warfare, torture and slavery, by any chance?
What would you consider an acceptable ratio? I assume you have a figure in mind, and aren’t simply in a bit of a rush to condemn the Catholic Church.
+
+3
Christian said...
Nope - none whatsoever.
This, however, is exactly my point:
Doesn't the very fact that I can find the sum of money thrown at the ad campaign against gay marriage on Catholic blogs like this along with the BBC news, general conversation, Bishop's statements etc. etc. show the priority of the Church?
I have seen no rallies/campaigns/statements about the Syrian immolation (c.17,000 dead); this is not to say they do not exist. Yet, my point is that in the public sphere, The Catholic Church has become very hot under the collar about gay marriage thus lying low the issues of this world that, I believe, really matter. The death, persecution, injustice of millions across the world has been ashamedly trumped by a bitty dispute over noun come verb.
Oh no - I never rush.
+
+9
Eoin said...
I gave you a "Yay By mistake! oops.
Anyway, its not a question of either/or. The RCC while being far from perfect is the biggest provider of charity, healthcare and education on this planet.
A couple of weeks ago we had a talk from a representative from one of the newer Catholic charities. " Marys Meals" providng food, with education for hundreds of thousands of African Children.
On a more local level my Parish provides a 3 couse meal to anyone in need every friday, and a goody bag of fruit etc to take home.
So the RCC does not just fight for humanity on a single, moral front.The approach is multi-faceted.Any attack on the family, as single-sex marriage is, is an attack on society itself.
The saving of souls is the core message, but we must try to make our, and everyone elses, time on this rotating spec of dust,as tolerable and just as possible.
+
+3
Mark Dobson said...
Well, if you're interested in what the Church does, rather than what it says - the trousers as opposed to the mouth, you might say - then the actual finance situation should interest you.
"Doesn't the very fact that I can find the sum of money thrown at the ad campaign [...] show the priority of the Church?"
Only to a certain extent; there's no need to attribute to naked hypocrisy something that can be accounted for by the banal realities of life (I wonder if that counts as Occam's razor...).
If the Church does what it's meant to and endeavours to fight injustice, no-one should be surprised; that's not news, either for the newspapers or for the Church (Lk 17:9-10). Nor did Jesus encourage the Church to publicise these things (Mt 6:2-3). The Church doesn't control the public sphere; the Pope, for example, has been talking - making those statements you were talking about - about Syria, but the UK media pays him less attention than the Italian media (I live in Italy) - obviously that's not the Pope's fault! And, of course, it's not a controversial issue; you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who supported violence in Syria, so the Church doesn't have to fight to make it's voice heard; not news, not reported. Unless you have any particular reason to suspect that Catholics have not been present and involved in the same rallies and campaigns as everyone else, it's a little premature to complain about it.
Then there's the simple fact that people tend to get exercised about the things that affect them most directly; I'm not saying that's right, but it is a failing which is common to Catholics and everyone else as well.
+
+6
Catherine said...
I thinnk it's important to acknowledge that at least one Catholic paid official
was involved in the event below....and that costs money...
Christian Concern and the World Congress of Families hosted an inspiring marriage conference on Wednesday 23 May, despite extraordinary opposition to the event taking place
http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/social/marriage-colloquium-goes-ahead-despite-attempts-to-ban-it
Edmund Adamus, Director for Marriage and Family Life, Diocese of Westminster, noted that:
The decline of marriage is a national problem and successive Governments in the UK have not given marriage the support it needs. Yet the decline of marriage as a social institution is not inevitable - recovery is possible.
Marriage as it has been understood and appreciated since time immemorial is a universal human institution, the way in which every advanced society conspires to obtain for each child the love, attention, and resources of a mother and a father, because we know this to be the optimum environment in which children thrive and flourish.
One of the reasons why there is such a loud clamour for same sex “marriage” today is because we have failed even in the Church and faith communities to adequately and visibly cherish true marriage itself. We have failed to talk marriage ‘up’ over many decades leaving space for an attack on marriage due to our ingratitude of it organisationally, institutionally and individually.
Each and every faithful marriage is like an amplifier of all that we know as humans to be instinctively noble, enriching and true for human flourishing. And we have to find ways of capturing the popular imagination of the reality of this astonishing power of spousal unity and love.
+
+2
New Friend said...
Catherine
I give due credit to all the good work done by your Church in seeking to alleviate poverty and hunger. I see it here and work with your Church. Only an hour ago I was at the local Catholic Church in a meeting, which included some priests, to discuss a project to help some poor farmers.
It is in such activities that I admire you all. I don't though when you enter the political arena. I realise there is a fine and imprecise line to be drawn but, for me at any rate, seeking to control what is meant by the term "marriage" is political and not social. I think you ought to restrict yourselves to considering what it means to you and your community and act accordingly. That is not to say that individuals should not voice their opinions. It just don't think the Church, as an organisation, should express a view. That, of course, is because I believe in a secular society in which religion and politics are kept strictly apart.
+
+1
Teresa said...
NF the secularist ideal is impossible - to live by one's faith means exactly that - one cannot live one's faith behind closed doors only - it affects and pervades everything that a person thinks, says and does (all areas of life). In order to impose the secularist ideal effectively and universally you would have to ban people of faith from all areas of life.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Teresa
I think you misunderstand secularism! No-one expects anything different from you. So to live your faith, in every aspect of your life, is perfectly OK with me and of course your faith will inform your decision taking.
Secularism does not only expects that, it welcomes and encourages it. What it does not want is the direct political influence, or involvement, of any Church or other belief. Secularism is only about the separation of politics and religious institutions. It is not about the exclusion of those of faith from the political process, in which they must fully participate, but as individuals and not as organised religions. This is to ensure that no undue weight be given to any particular viewpoint, which is something I think Catholics ought to support rather than oppose.
+
Teresa said...
ok fair comment - you were speaking about the institution - I was speaking about the faithful.
but on the matter of living out one's faith, the secular ideal is contradictory - it accepts, or even as you say, welcomes and encourages people to live out their faith, but then penalises them for doing so as soon as faith contradicts some aspect of public life (I refer to the various cases that have been brought over the past few years). Man is not an island. It is not possible to live out one's faith without it affecting other people.
With that in mind, can you indicate how secularism and practicing one's faith can ever be compatible?
+
+1
New Friend said...
Teresa
Secularism actually has no view at all on how you live your faith. It is only about separating government from belief.
How individuals should act is another question to which the answer is not very difficult in my view. You simply have to respect other people and their own beliefs, or lack of them. In every one of those various cases that was not done. The belief of the religious person was held by them to be more important than the belief of others. We can examine all of them if you wish so I can explain why that was. There are practical ways of living your faith without it interfering directly with anyone who does not welcome it.
+
Teresa said...
NF - how a person lives their faith and how they act are directly related.
Many situations exist which require a person to actively go against their faith or be penalised (I am not talking about things which are not obligatory, like displaying symbols). Therefore there is not always a practical way of living one's faith without interfering directly with those who do not welcome it.
The secular ideal that you speak of is well intentioned but is an illusion.
BTW evangelisation is an obligatory part of 'living one's faith'. Evangelisation is an action that affects others in a way which not everyone would like or accept. How do you square that one with the secular ideal?
It is also a false statement to say that secularism has no view on how I live my faith - if I act in accordance with my faith and it affects others in a way they don't like, then there would most definitely be a view on it - I can't see a blind eye being turned
+
+1
New Friend said...
Teresa
Your questions really have nothing at all to do with secularism. I repeat secularism is only about separating, at a formal level, the state from any and all religions. It has no opinion about how individuals behave. That is not to say that your questions are not important but so often there is a mistake made in the minds of Catholics (and others) which seems to confuse secularism with atheism. Whilst it is true that most atheists will naturally be secularists they are not the same.
This is an issue I have debated before with other Catholics so I understand your dilemma. I have had Catholics tell me that "natural law" lies above state law and must be followed whenever there is a conflict. For me this is nonsense. Every citizen has to abide by the law equally and no-one can pick and choose which applies to them and which does not.
I realise the problems that "evangelisation" brings to this although I see a clear, easy and obvious solution. I know you are compelled by your faith to spread it. I have been accused of "proselytising" in the past and banned from a Catholic web forum as a consequence of asking what the difference was between "proselytising" and "evangelisation".
My answer is simple. Don't evangelise to those who don't want it. Make your information available. Be ready to answer questions. Be there to help and then to explain what drives you to act this way. I believe that acts speak much more than words so that you are much more likely to succeed when people willingly enquire as a consequence of something you have done, than if you approach them directly.
Its my birthday later this week and I have a big party planned, with over 100 guests expected. 75% of them will be Catholics, including several priests with whom I am working on a particular project. They never try to evangelise me, and nor do any of the others. We discuss the practicalities of your faith and find a surprising level of agreement. These guys are fun. They are devoted to their people, and work tirelessly for them, but also like a beer and a joke. I respect them, and they me, but we don't try to convert one another. We learn from each other.
+
Teresa said...
NF I have to say that I am not confusing secularism with atheism (although I know some do). I do understand the difference.
You stated that the everyone must abide by the law equally. That is a fair point, but there are occasions where a conflict exists between the requirements of the law and the requirements of one's faith, and one has to either go against one's beliefs or be penalised. I know you understand this. Laws are becoming increasingly difficult for faith groups to adhere to.
I refer to your previous post;"No-one expects anything different from you. So to live your faith, in every aspect of your life, is perfectly OK with me.... Secularism does not only expects that, it welcomes and encourages it. "
To say on the one hand that "living ones faith" is "perfectly ok" and "welcomed" and to then say that I must follow the law regardless of conflict is a contradiction. It clearly isn't ok to live my faith sometimes. Living my faith involves all my thoughts, words and actions. Compatibility is relative to whether faith conforms. As long this is so, then the two ideals do not fit - this was what I was getting at.
It is not clear from your post whether you understand (apologies if you already do) that "natural law" is still divine law (God made nature), but is distinguished from the revealed Law as found in Scripture by the fact that all can grasp it without knowledge of Scripture. Catholics elevate natural law above man made law because it of its divine origin, not simply because it is natural. That is the Catholic perspective. Various protestant Christians hold to a Sola Scriptura ideal on matters of faith and morals. This is just a definition - I am not expecting you to agree with it - and as I say, apologies if you already understand it.
Evangelisation (spreading the word) does not involve coercing others. I fear that I may have implied that it did, which wasn't my intention - nor did I intend to imply that it necessarily involved approaching people JW style. Much has been said about actions rather than words - and you do have a valid point there. Your priest friends will be witnessing by default by discussing with you.
BTW I like a beer and a joke with our priests at social events too. Don't think that one is exclusive :)
+
+1
New Friend said...
Teresa
I think we have a broad level of agreement. I do understand your dilemma and so too, I believe does society at large, as every effort is made to permit minorities to hold faith positions without restrictions so long as there is no over-riding conflict with the interests of the majority. That is, I believe, the mark of a mature democracy.
Following the law is difficult for all of us at times, and I suspect we all fail at one time or another. I know I have.
Where we probably part company is when a compromise cannot be found. In such cases I believe that state law must always be followed, without any excuses or exemptions permitted. Disagreeing with the law, for whatever reason, is no excuse not to abide by it. Just because you make claims that your reasons come from "God" is no justification at all. To accept that would be to relegate non believers to be second class citizens and that must not happen. We must all be equal under the law.
Of course no one can be forced to abide by the law but those who don't must be prepared to suffer the consequences. In practice the times when this happens are really rare for people do understand and try to find ways of accomodating alternative views. This is why I don't think you need have any fear that Catholic Churches will be forced to marry gay couples and why such a big effort was made to try to find a work around for the Catholic adoption agencies. People respect and understand, but ultimately you can only lead the horse to the water. Whether he drinks or not is his decision. Compromise is not a word I often hear from a Catholic and that is a pity, for it must surely be better to achieve 50% of your aims than none at all.
+
+11
Salisbury John said...
NF says
"I just don't think the Church, as an organisation, should express a view"
in that case NO organisation as you call it should express a view on marriage.Not any NGO not the UN not the UNESCO not the WHO not the IMF not the Bildeberg Group not Starbucks etc none......
yet all the others apart from the Church are OK to support "gay Marriage" but the Church cannot???
ridiculous
+
+1
New Friend said...
John
I think it is ridiculous, and quite frankly a little sad, that you cannot see the difference between a Church and the other organisations you mention.
NGOs, the UN, the IMF etc, etc, have legitimate political aspirations. The whole of society is their portfolio. They don't have a specific membership for whom they care. My view is that any Church ought to concentrate on their responsibilities to their own flock, do the charity work they do so well and which speaks quietly, but positively, of their faith and leave the politics to others. Of course their membership has a right, and a duty, to express themselves politically. I just don't think it is appropriate that this is done directly by a Church. It is not their role.
By the way I feel exactly the same about all "interest groups" and think the growth of political lobbying to be a very regrettable development. Producing information which is provided only to our parliamentary representatives to enable them to come to informed decisions is acceptable. Applying pressure, campaigning or, as happens in the USA, supporting election campaigns with the expectation of subsequent payback in favours, is something I detest. We vote in our Parliament in secret, as individuals and not through organisations. In my opinion that is the way the whole system ought to work.
+
+6
Robert said...
but your politics is informed by your religious view of society. How can it be otherwise? - you believe in certain things about society, if you have a belief that is religious in the sense thats what you believe in. And you disagree with what other people believe in if it does not accord with your views.
The church in one sense is simply the greatest voluntary organization on earth - of course it has beliefs and views, its been going for 2000 years it would be exceedingly odd if it didn't have views and beliefs and doctrines.
Its just that you don't like them or they don't fit with your view of the world.
But even on the democratic view which is so beloved of liberals you are out voted globally by over a billion catholics.
But you don't like that so you want to aggresively militate to try to change that position.Thats why you love the revolution, but catholics know perfectly well what game is being played.
To paraphrase Chesterton Christianity came early and has spread everywhere, liberalism came late and has spread nowhere.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Robert
There is nothing which separates us in what you say. Of course your politics are informed by your religious beliefs. I would expect anything else. What I am arguing is how they are applied, whether individually or collectively through the church.
Most of your one hundred million Catholics are extremely ignorant and don't have access to the altenative viewpoints we have in the west. I live amongst a representaive sample of 100 million of them and I can assure you that when they are given all the facts their minds rapidly change. Ignorance might not be bliss, but it also should not be used as a justification for your policies.
Times are changing here fast too and, once the alternatives are understood, the grip of the Church is bound to slip, despite the desperate rearguard defensive action being mounted.
By the way, "liberalism" is an entirely positive attribute which has been usurped by the ridiculous right wing in the USA to become an insult hurled at those with a social conscience. Those in the UK who are sucked in to using the term in the same way ought to be ashamed of themselves.
+
+1
mike cliffson said...
""liberalism" is an entirely positive attribute which has been usurped by the ridiculous right wing in the USA to become an insult hurled at those with a social conscience. Those in the UK who are sucked in to using the term in the same way ought to be ashamed of themselves."
"Our understanding of the meaning of words is ever changing. It has been ever thus "
+
+1
New Friend said...
Mike
Sorry for the late response, but I missed your comment. Don't you think there is a difference between the way a word naturally evolves and becomes more inclusive, as "marriage" is doing now, and the way a word gets taken over and used to mean something completely different, which is what has happened to "liberal"?
I don't think "liberal" has evolved into the meaning now applied in the USA. I think it has been hi-jacked and bears no resemblance to the original and true meaning. No doubt, from your perspective "marriage" is being hi-jacked too, but for me the change is a natural progression made as our society develops and becomes more tolerant.
+
mike cliffson said...
NF
No,perhaps I quoted your own words wishing to indicate that you were being a little inconsistent.
You can analyse historical and other changes of meanings in many ways , for simplicity St Augustine's term, words as "conventional signs" is convenient.There is a geographically and historically changing “social convention”, similar to formal and informal dress at a given time, at a given place. The reality that the word, as a sign, refers to, or "denotation", remains "out there".
Adverising agencies and spin doctors are all too aware of the "connotations", the impact and "frendliness" of a word, and so forth:just think how"Fairness" sells better than “justice".
It is one thing to ACCEPT that , for a particular, say stateside, say younger,audience you are, or are not , communicating what you want to, or viceversa. With Americans you will not say what you intend if you say how nice the faggots and chips are in the Chinese chippie.
Quite another thing it is to consider that a particular change or social or geographical difference entails certain advantages or disadvantages,is for good or is for evil, or both, and to what extent, hence motivating not just going along with what happens, rather , welcoming it or resisting it ,eg by warning and correcting others.
One may, equally, be angry that the denotations of particular words or their connotations be concertedly and consciously pushed by media people, and/or a minority with a planned agenda. Part of this fits the metaphor of hijacking, as I would with the stateside realtors selling "homes " as opposed to "houses" which has spread to the UK recently(Still, Brit politicians were guilty of the “homes for heroes” policy post WWI: it was houses with smallholdings for ex-servicemen ). Or it may involve "giving a dog a bad name", as with all the words for male humans: inducing more and more negative associations with the existing word .This has been studied on news casts , and it’s quite blatant, eg “ FireMAN rapes and kills......””three corrupt fire MEN steal charity money..”..140 firefighters(in fact, all men) die heroically....
I greatly appreciate your empathy with catholics feeling that the word” marriage” is being hijacked, but for myself this is the level to which I would refer hijacking. With people outside these circles, I still object to the change in use,when in most cases the useR is motiveless, they’re just repeating something.
M any BBC studies are “Descriptive”, neutrally charting eg changes in place-name pronunciation, whereas the French are “prescriptive” the academy tries to impose norms of use and meaning and wholly new words etc.from above, because they can. One may, and I do, recognize a slide into un-anglosaxon despotism, the taking root of thought control and thought police, by the state, or eurocrats, “prescriptively” changing the meanings of familiar words.Becuase they can.
Hijacking, with a jackboot.
Preferable, though easy targets for mockery, is the coining of legal neologisms, to be resisted is their deliberate and regulated pettifogging intrusion into ordinary life: "vehicle" has long served a legal purpose whilst we continue to talk about our "cars"”hatchbacks”,etc ; "pigmeat" could have served in the same way had they not wished to banish "pork" from the home and highstreet.
Whilst I think you will find that stateside the historical evolution of the word "liberal" has not been as you describe, you are perfectly entitled to dislike and resist such changes. (Certainly the party of Gladstone would not recognize presentday US policies labelled for some generations "liberal" by their proposers and adherents, who wished to be called liberals, which came before those who oppose such policies attacked them with the very word. The reverse can happen as with "whig" and "tory", originally factional insults , to become proud selfdescriptive boasts of the very people the original intention was to belittle. Long, and fascinating, story. Confusingly,amongst anglosphere catholics “liberal catholic “has mostly come to mean something bad since 50 years ago, when one could say that Archbishop Lefebre was a liberal minded missionary, probably from the highly simplistic and inaccurate American journalistic labelling of the currents of opinion at the last Vatican Council, which stuck.)
Another example: I would consider it useless to deny and not accept that the use of the pronoun "it" rather than "she" amongst Southern British middleclassmales from at least the late sixties onwards, referring to, or meaning, denoting, a young lady. I have always deemed it to be resisted, as demeaning and, by implication, mentally asssociating women with the "object" class,with bad consequences for the user and society, tho used heedlessly and , in the technical sense,conventionally. I object to the use, in most cases the user is motiveless.
Were you right, which needs more proof than your asseveration, but it may come to pass, that social convention alone was changing the word "marriage" that would,then,but not until then, eventually require acceptance for the purposes of communication, but NOT catholic approval nor unresistance to change in the "true and original"-your words- meaning*.There are many many,evil legal, home, and high street knockons that ensue. *(This has happened before: eg less s eriously in French“espirituel”, spiritual, by social use alone came to mean “witty”, leaving catholics and others with an awkward gap in the language and an obscuring of the meaning of older books.By social use alone the Spanish “retrete “ , once retreat ,came so universally to mean WC because of a euphemism(where is he? He’s on retreat, apt for the time some people do spend on the loo) that the church in Spain had to give up using it, and still does not have an adequate unambiguous replacement.)
This Catholic rejection and objection is so much the more so in that here definitely IS media and groupwithanagenda hijacking,here I use your word with a subject, and the Ukgov is proposing a statist ,enforced hijacking of marriage as a word.
And as an institution.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Mike
I am unable to follow your reasoning in your long and rather rambling response. I think we are agreed that words do change their meaning with time, but not as to why that always is. I think some evolve, whilst others are hi-jacked, but am unsure exactly what you think. We disagree about "marriage". I think it has already evolved, whilst you think it is being hi-jacked. Sorry about not understanding it all. Blame me for my stupidity but perhaps best to leave it there.
+
mike cliffson said...
I daresay I'll survive.
+
mike cliffson said...
Dear Write a thesis.
Thankyou, even if I have a vague suspicion that you are being tongue in cheek. Or, perish the thought, taking the mickey.
Semantics is lovely, linguistics is nice, you've just seen a bookshelf with none of the price.
Some Ideas are murky and lead to what's bad
And the wheels 've fell off the sanctity you once had.
To return to this thread's burden:
aspects of the question of changes to marriage as a word and as an institution are like the difference between lemmings and Pol Pot.
If lemmings en masse jump off the cliff, each one going with the crowd, the impulse to do that is inside each one's own head.
Pol Pot, and the agenda-driving clique around him, wrought mass murder by force.Individual willingness and decision were irrelevant.
Like lemmings: those who abandon the traditional idea of marriage and family, one man, one woman,for life, and their kids.
Like Pol Pot: such governments as change the words for, and intended reality, of the above.
Like the clique....
+
+1
New Friend said...
Mike
Do you truly believe that the changes to the way "marriage" is perceived and recognised around the world can be compared to lemmings?
Just because people are being faced with new arguments and reasoning, that they have not considered before, does not make them lemmings if they find they agree with it. You may not accept it but other people have brains too! To accuse people who disagree with you of simply jumping on band waggons is more evidence of self righteous nonsense.
If you really believe this then I suspect you are a member of a very isolated and somewhat weird group whose views have no chance at all of prevailing and for that we can all be grateful.
No-one is forcing anyone to change their personal understanding of the word and the way it is applied. I would ask that you respect the rights of others who disagree and extend to them the same courtesy of being able to reach their own conclusions.
+
mike cliffson said...
NF
For the record: the comment you refer to was headed to "write athesis", NOT NF, as it arose in the context of what, apparently was a Spam comment which mine host removed.(I never knew such existed, but it figures,on blogspot you have to figure out odd stuff to comment , there are a whole lot more today)
For the gentleman in question, Lemmings is a common enough metaphor for heedless followers of fashion, and a sufficient simplification of one point among many on this thread.I am not going to reiterate what you find rambling.
Band-waggon is a wider metaphor, certainly: some drive and decide the route, most just get on.
As to "noone is forcing.."
I was not aware that the Government of the Uk was undertaking a slow Japanese process of not moving until a complete consensus was obtained with everyone aboard.
It is common enough to use "force" to describe the coercive power of the state, as in "Catholic adoption agencies forced to close or give children in adoption to homosexual couples/whatever word.", and many similar examples.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Mike
I realise it was not in response to me but the point you tried to make needed a rebuttal.
You can restate it as often as you wish, using different words like "a follower of fashion" as well. Repetition does nothing to increase the validity, for it has none. This is not what is happening. I would suggest it is an opening of minds and eyes to previously unconsidered possibilities. As your objections have obliged people to actually think about these issues in some ways we have to thank you.
Of course the Government is not waiting for a complete consensus. We expect them to lead the debate and, if the arguments in favour of change outweigh those against, for them to ensure that the legal framework exists for that change to happen. That is not forcing change at all.
To once again suggest that the examples you quote are evidence of a Government "forcing" things to happen is an opinion held only by those who hold your viewpoint. It is not shared by me, or I believe by the vast majority of the rest of the population.
The Catholic adoption agencies were not forced to close. They felt unable to comply with the requirements placed upon them by the terms of their contracts and decided they had no choice other than to close. It was unfortunate, and probably avoidable, but it was not forced. It was an example of the state quite rightly insisting that it's laws are supreme. The Catholic adoption agencies could have made a bigger effort and have found a compromise. That they stubbornly refused was their decision. The door was wide open for them and they refused to enter.
+
mike cliffson said...
NF
Most historical changes in the meaning of a given word are NOT demonstrably associated with ALL who use it with a changed meaning having a common motivation to favour BOTH the change in the meaning AND the associated reason for the change.
I hold that the history of such changes indicates that the burden of any such proof be on those in favour of the change.
In this case, where have your comments indicated any verifiable exception to the general rule?
No argument we could have on this point would be as clear as a referendum.
A referendum would not demonstrate the rightness of a cause, but would demostrate the degree of support for different options.
In the USA such referenda's results, insofar as not extending ·marriage" to homosexual couples, have been closer to a catholic position than not.In the uk this is not necessarily extrapolable, who knows how one might turn out?
Nonetheless,the catholic position would remain referred to every catechism to date: that homosexual acts are in there with murder and the exploitation of the weak as sins which cry to heaven, as did Abel's blood from the very earth after his brother murdered him.
The catholic adoption agencies were required to change, not maintain, their uptillrecently-legal modus operandi, or close.Because of a change.
Which they were forced to comply with, or close.
I wrote "forced to close or give children in adoption to homosexual couples."
You conflate that to "forced to close".
We talk, do we not, of laws and rules and norms being enforced?
I said "It is common enough to use "force" to describe the coercive power of the state", your comment denies this is forcing someone to do something, yet your comment justifies the "state rightly insisting its laws are supreme"
Consider the implications.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Mike
The evidence of evolutionary change to the meaning of "marriage" is all around us. I suggest that there is never a point when the word just changes so it is nonsense to require that "the burden of proof" be established. We are not writing the OED! In time their committee which determines how to record the meaning of words may well update "marriage", but it won't be yet. It is a gradual process of acceptance. Some have accepted it already, whilst others have not and may never.
Requesting a referendum on such an issue is typical of those who are losing the argument but realise that the majority may not yet have been convinced. It won't happen in the UK, for it is not, quite rightly in my view, the way we do things. I regard the way the USA handle plebiscites on such issues to be a huge weakness in their system and I have frequently debated this with many Americans. As you would, I am quite sure, oppose a referendum on other issues, which a majority might pass, this is rather silly suggestion. Just imagine the consequences of a referendum on the death penalty or on whether we should immediately pull all our troops out of Afganistan. They might be popular but that does not make them right. That is why we have representative government.
That your Church opposes homosexual acts because of a particular interpretation in the Bible, which I understand not to be shared by all Christians, might be a good enough reason for your own position. It is not sufficient to base a law upon.
The Catholic adoption agencies were not treated any differently to anyone else. If you object to the law applying equally and fairly to every citizen then I think you put yourself in an odd position. We are all ultimately subject to the "force of the law", but that is the ONLY force involved and it has to apply to everyone without exception. In fact much tolerance is shown to minority positions and great effort made to accomodate differing viewpoints. From what I read of the situation of the Catholic adoption agencies such efforts were made by the authorities who did not want to lose them or their valuable work. They offered to allow Catholic agencies to refer on to other agencies any cases with which they had a particular problem because of a faith based objection. However it seems to me that someone, or something, behind the scenes was determined to make an issue of this and pulled strings and not allow them to make even this small compromise. This then was clearly not big Government forcing the Catholic agencies to do something or close. They decided for themselves not to comply with the new requirements, refused any kind of offered compromise and had no other choice left open other than to close. It has been presented by your Church as victimisation, but it was far from that. I think it was a shameful political gesture by your Church.
+
mike cliffson said...
NF Your comment's last sentence "shameful political gesture By your church" is in itself shameful. A child is a "case"?
Referendums used to be unusual in the Uk. As it happens , I am in favour of them, wholesale, clear ,and frequent, alongside representative government. Why does your comment smear them by the name plebiscite, most associated with dictators trying to give themselves figleaves ?
Plenty of referendums would not go as I would hope, any more than the majority of the electorate and myself always coincide. Your comment says "popular does not make them right"- right or wrong on what basis, pray?
If your comment's view of representative government is that it is there to frustrate the will of the people, that is most revealing.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Mike
No a child is not a case. A child seeking adoption needs a loving home and to not become a political football or to be used to make grandiose gestures, which what I fear happened in these cases. The cases I speak of were the Catholic adoption agencies all deciding not to continue for reasons which could, and should, have been compromised upon. Did that action truly help any child?
There is no smear at all in my choice of words. A referendum and plebiscite are alternative words for exactly the same thing. I do not believe in them. It is not part of our version of representative parliamentary democracy and to adopt such a system would be, in my view, a major and very regrettable change. They are only acceptable when they relate to major constitutional issues and even then I personally am not in favour. I prefer to concentrate upon ensuring we vote into power the people we want to consider everything very fully, and let them decide, rather than rely upon a largely uninformed electorate who are at the whim of the popular press. I don't want "Murdoch's law" in the UK thank you.
Popular does not make it right for that very reason. You have only to listen to 30 minutes bar talk to understand why I believe that to be true.
Representative government is not there to frustrate the will of the people at all. It is to lead them, and to protect them from their own worst prejudices. Whilst the people retain their duty to elect their representatives every 5 years their will will continue to be done. I am very proud of our system and have no wish to reform it's basis, other than removing priviledge from the House of Lords.
+
mike cliffson said...
Maybe.When polticians and the (smaller)establishment had more respect for the constitution and individual freedoms. Maybe.
Quotes:rather than rely upon a largely uninformed electorate
Representative government is not there to frustrate the will of the people at all. It is to lead them, and to protect them from their own worst prejudices
Popular does not make it right
. As you would, I am quite sure, oppose a referendum on other issues, which a majority might pass, this is rather silly suggestion. Just imagine the consequences of a referendum on the death penalty or on whether we should immediately pull all our troops out of Afganistan. They might be popular but that does not make them right.
You have only to listen to 30 minutes bar talk to understand why I believe that to be true.
Unquote
Vox populi is not vox dei, to decide the basis for right and wrong.
For that we have the supremacy of conscience.
But better the people decide than the local and european apparat
Your comments look like virtual dictatorship by the nomenclatura.
The "wise" and superior mortals with theier supreme who will decide on murder at either end of life destro the family and marriage, and treat children as cases.
If the ideal is to join in the smug sneers of the beeb, Ill stick withthe hoi polloi thankyou, and let them decide more than a beauty contest every five years.
Not in three hundred years of pubtalk would much as foul come up.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Mike
Thanks. No more needs to be said. I therefore rest my case. Let the jury of public opinion decide.
+
mike cliffson said...
NF
I thought your comments discounted popular opinion as swayable by Murdoch.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Mike
In this case Murdoch is not involved (unless you are he, in disguise, which seems unlikely). However, I would be prepared in this case to permit an exception and even allow Murdoch to sum up for us.
+
+1
mike cliffson said...
NF
Here's a noncatholic I believe, dunno if murdoch mmuddick, methuen ,or who:hotcopied
Telegraph online edition :Scotland isn't a beacon of freedom. Its support for gay marriage is just another excuse to pry into private lives
By Brendan O'Neill Politics Last updated: July 26th, 2012
Something about the praise being heaped on Scotland this morning doesn’t add up. The Scottish Parliament is being hailed as brave and liberal and “committed to freedom and equality” for its decision to fast-track the legalisation of gay marriage. Liberal? Committed to freedom? The same Scottish Parliament which over the past decade put even New Labour to shame when it came to nannying, nudging and hectoring the allegedly fat, feckless populace? The same Scotland which in recent years has transmogrified into a banana republic of petty lifestyle laws designed to tell people what they’re allowed to say and think and how they should live? The same Scotland that is ruled by cut-off nationalists who seem less interested in creating a new Scottish nation than in remoulding the habits and thoughts of those who inhabit the current Scottish nation? Forgive me if I am sceptical of the idea that this meddlesome statelet has overnight become a beacon of freedom.
Scotland’s embrace of the gay marriage issue confirms that it is entirely possible to be both pettily authoritarian and pro-gay marriage. In fact, it suggests that these two positions might be correlated, that there could be a close link between being itchily interventionist into people’s private lives and also wanting to overhaul the traditional institution of marriage in order to allow homosexuals to get hitched. How else do we explain the fact that the most vocal supporters of gay marriage – David Cameron, Labour politicians, the Scottish National Party, illiberal liberal columnists – are also the biggest fans of the new lifestyle authoritarianism? It seems that being an authoritarian snooper and being pro-gay marriage go together like horse and carriage.
Scotland sums this up well. As of yesterday, the Scottish Parliament is now famous for two things: being effusive about letting gays get married and being effusive about controlling the everyday behaviour of its population. Under the SNP, Scotland has become the most authoritarian bit of Britain (and that’s saying something). Its parliament has become a trailblazer for the new moralism and meddling in our lives. It spearheaded the ban on smoking in public places, boasting that it was taking a “bold and politically courageous step” towards becoming a brave new healthier nation. It is obsessed with banning boozing that it disapproves of: its 2010 Alcohol Bill bans quantity discounts on alcohol sales (like three-for-two offers on cans of lager), restricts the holding of happy hours in pubs (miserable bastards), and says that anyone who looks 25 or younger must be ID’d when buying booze. The SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon says this is about “changing Scotland’s relationship with alcohol” and “the journey is not over”: there is even talk of completely banning the sale of alcohol in supermarkets. So committed to freedom, them Scots!
When it isn’t forcing people to stub out their fags and trying to price poor people out of the world of boozing, the brave and liberal Scottish Parliament is curbing what people can say and sing at football matches. In a searing assault on freedom of speech that would cause massive media outrage if it was applied at the opera, say, rather than at Ibrox and other football stadiums, the SNP’s Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill outlaws the singing of sectarian songs and potentially criminalises other forms of “sectarian” behaviour at football matches, such as flag-waving and even blessing oneself. There have been dawn raids against people suspected of expressing sectarian views at football games. That is the end of free speech right there. And we’re expected to believe that this government which drags football fans out of their beds at 6am on suspicion of having sung a dodgy song is “committed to freedom and equality”? Just how stupid do you think we are?
So is the Scottish government’s support for gay marriage a temporary deviation from its normal work of passing illiberal new laws and bossing people around? I don’t think so. I think it is an extension of that authoritarianism. What is fundamentally attractive about the gay marriage issue to politicians who can’t even spell the word freedom – politicians like David Cameron and Nicola Sturgeon – is that it grants them the authority to meddle in an age-old institution and even to redefine the meaning of marriage. It gives them the power to refashion marriage in the image of their own social set and according to their own moral outlook, and even allows them to redefine people’s identities, to rechristen us all “partners” rather than husbands or wives and “Parent 1” and “Parent 2” rather than mum and dad. Gay marriage is attractive to the petty authoritarians who rule over us because it gives them a big and firm foot in the door of marriage and the family – institutions which were traditionally seen as being beyond the grasp and remit and diktat of the state, which were considered “havens in a heartless world”. Scotland’s rulers are drawn to gay marriage not in spite of their normal lust for sticking their hooters into people's private lives, but because of it.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100172747/scotland-isnt-a-beacon-of-freedom-its-support-for-gay-marriage-is-just-another-excuse-to-pry-into-private-lives/
Right.Now that makes 2 of us in broad agreement.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Mike
As I have said before the stance of your Church on this issue puts you with some pretty strange company, including outright homophobes, and that is likely to be how many people will therefore categorise you.
I don't agree with the SNP over wishing to break up the union but I do over this issue, on which their words have been both wise and correct. Incidentally I also agree with them on trying to tackle both smoking and excessive drinking. Those who believe that any action on such things are evidence of an interfering nanny state won't agree with me of course.
+
mike cliffson said...
NF
Strange company : what an irrelevant fruitless time waster that could be for thee and me! We should all wet our knickers everytime there's a happenstance coincidence in the same corner, and not act?
".../::You can tell a man who boozes
by the company he chooses
and at that the pig got up and walked away."
What , I wonder would a comment of yours impute people as categorizing , for someone(not me) who left a public meeting at the beginning of the Spanish Civil on the arm of Mrs Franco?
This post started on the church in Scotland's reaction to homosexual hitching being made equivalent to marriage.
The arbitary nature of the powers given the Scots assembly is made manifest inter alia on abortion being excluded from them , I am sure you have the details.
A very insulting thing Id have thought, telling what their toy parliament could play with, and what not.
This remains about murder at both ends of life , and destruction of the family in the middle, via , be it said, massive encroachments on liberty en route.
If all this really truly is of concern to catholics alone, so be it.
+
mike cliffson said...
James: This is weird, there were two comments here a few hours ago, write-athesis was the nomdeplume of one.
+
James said...
They were spam comments so I deleted them
+
Writing Services said...
Thank you for this interesting post. It is obvious you put a great amount of time and effort into your research.
+
Area Rugs said...
Great post! That was interesting.I like your quality that you put into your post.Please do continue with more like this.
+
car wreck lawyer houston said...
Awesome, you said it so well!
+