What shall we call Marriage now?

Blogged by James Preece on 14th December 2012

There are days when I think it might be easier to just cut out the middle man and forward all my blog traffic to Fr Ray Blake's place. This is one of those days, Fr Blake has written exactly what I was thinking...

"I wish one of our Archbishops or Bishops had written this:"

The most striking thing about the government’s consultation report on gay marriage, published yesterday, is how casually and cockily it redefines the institution of marriage. The Tories now decree that marriage is simply and definitively “about two people who love each other making a formal commitment to each other”. That’s it. It’s about you and your lover, nobody else. It isn’t about having children or raising a family or binding yourself into the broader community through taking on responsibility for creating and socialising the next generation; it is simply about “two people”, ensconced in a loving bubble, making a “commitment to each other”.

To that end, the report makes absolutely no mention of creating a family. It uses the word “children” only eight times, and its every use of that word is merely part of a response to (and criticism of) those groups that petitioned the government to recognise the importance of marriage as a means of raising and socialising children. It doesn’t mention procreation, or family bonds, or communities (except when it refers to the needs and aspirations of the “transgender community”). Marriage is depicted as something which takes place in a vacuum, between two people wrenched from any broader notion of social or generational responsibilities, where the aim is merely to satisfy an individual’s own needs. Marriage, the government decrees, is about allowing “two people” to “express their love and happiness”.

Of course, marriage, at root, brings together two people, and it is, one would hope, an occasion of love and happiness. But what this report overlooks is that for great numbers of people marriage is about more than “two people” – it is about entering into a union for the purpose of creating a family and assuming a social, even historic responsibility for raising the next generation. For many people, marriage is something which not only binds them to the person they love but which also binds them to the broader community, making them a key cog in a social process of having, educating, caring for and imbuing with goodness children who will go on to become the future guardians of society. That none of this is even mentioned in the government’s report – that family, children, community are all glaringly absent from this government decree on “what marriage means” – suggests that an alarmingly narrow conception of marriage is being pushed to the forefront of British political and social life.

[link]

If marriage is about two people in a bubble of luurve then why on earth does the government need to have anything to do with it? How is it any of their business who is in a bubble with who?

On the other hand, if children have the right to grow up in a stable home with their own biological parents of both genders sticking around to look after them then it makes sense for the surrounding society to discourage people from producing children if they are not yet in a lifelong relationship. It makes sense for the surrounding society to provide a legal structure for people to enter in to those relationships and to provide support and encouragement to help those relationships last.

We used to call that marriage - what are we supposed to call it now?

Rate this blogentry: + -

+30

This Item Tagged With:

Reader Comments

+18

Chrysostom said...

The English Catholic bishops, collectively, are adopting the wrong tactics just at they did when the Catholic Adoption Societies were closed down.
It is no use asking for a "free vote" for Labour and Libdem MPs since most of them will vote against true marriage since the Conservative Party has very kindly offered to take all the odium.

The Catholic bishops should demand a referendum on the matter ( the vast majority of people are against changing marriage and the policy was not in the manifesto of any political party) and they should state openly that no matter what the politicians say, the Catholic Church will continue to teach its two-thousand year-old teaching that sodomy (use the correct name, please) is a sin "Crying out to heaven for vengeance." The Church should also declare that in every Catholic school the pupils will be taught the truth not revealed in all the wonderful state "Sex-education" syllabuses, that homosexual sex is so unhealthy that those who particiapate in it ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DONATE BLOOD, IN THIS COUNTRY AND ALMOST EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

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.

New Friend said...

It seems to me that the important phrase in this piece is to be found in this:-

"For many people, marriage is something which not only binds them to the person they love but which also binds them to the broader community"

The key here word is "many". You are obviously included in that "many", along with those of a similar persuasion. The "many" does not mean all, nor does it mean a majority. The government is reflecting a changed attitude to this matter and seeking to focus minds. It is not for the "many" to define what is meant by "marriage" or to claim that what has been must always be. It is for all of us to make those judgements. Within your own community you will not be forced to change anything. All that is asked is that you don't seek to impose your narrow views on others who don't share them.

Ora Pro Nobis said...

Hi there New Friend,

Just so you know that all this marriage stuff is scriptural and not just made up by some crazy folks in the Vatican:

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

The bottom line is marriage is unique to a man and a woman specifically for procreation. It is also worth mentioning that within a Catholic marriage (or to be honest any Christian marriage) that the sexual union should be chaste i.e. no sexual debauchery within marriage.

I still do not really understand why you support secularism which has no answers for the happiness and health of a society. It is plain to see that secularism always leads to a 'me, me, me' mentality, which leads to selfishness, which in turn leads to those subject to this selfishness being hurt.

Now that everyone is effectively going 'me, me, me' the majority suffer. Why do you think we have a financial crisis?

New Friend said...

Ora Pro Nobis

Which is perfectly fine for everyone, like you, who believe this to be true. No-one seeks to interfere with your beliefs and force you to do anything which goes against them.

For those who hold other opinions all that is asked of you is exactly the same. Please don't force feed me, or anyone else, with Bible quotes as a justification for anything. I need reasoning that relates to today's world.

Ora Pro Nobis said...

Something has just clicked about what you say in your posts. You seem to think that some how that today's world is different from the past, and hence everything needs to be put in a modern context.

What you deem to be 'the modern world' is the outward signs of modern buildings, modern technology etc. However, human beings have the same responses to events (and the world around them) that as they did at any time in history. People's inherent biological feelings of anger, happiness, anxiety, contentedness have not changed in this time. In other words our brain responses are not modern.

When you say "I need reasoning that relates to today's world" maybe you need to think again. In the same way that the need for getting food in the dark ages caused anxiety, stress and fear; so it is the same with the 1930's Great Depression causing anxiety, stress and fear. It is exactly the same anxiety, stress and fear that someone gets if they are made redundant and can not pay their mortgage today due to the modern financial crisis.

The problems of today have all been seen before. Just because we all have mobile phones and computers now is irrelevant because our psychological responses are the same as they have always been.

So what is the big deal about this 'modern world' that you keep going on about? You say that "you need reasoning that relates to the modern world". It sounds like you are looking for some sort of god of your own to help you 'reason out the modern world'. So who is this god that you have chosen to 'reason-out' the modern world? Is it an academic, a political system, or a social system? Who/what is it that you have chosen to 'reason-out' the modern world?

New Friend said...

Ora Pro Nobis

Of course we all feel the same emotions as we ever did. With respect that's pretty obvious!

What you seem to miss is the context in which they are felt, and this really matters. You surely cannot deny that the world is now a very different place to only a few years ago and completely different to that which existed when the Bible was written.

We all know so much more and can communicate and investigate almost anything we want almost instantaneously. So although we still feel anger, happiness, anxiety and contentedness we do so in a completely different context.

Our expectations have increased alongside our knowledge, as well as our tolerance of diversity.

We no longer accept trite answers which bear no relevance to our experiences. We definitely understand more than they did 2000 years ago which is why quoting the Bible is not acceptable to a non believer. Much of the advice, being based upon common sense, of course remains relevant but needs to be set in a contemporary context.

Ora Pro Nobis said...

I totally understand your point about people not accepting trite answers (though I obviously do not agree in relation to the bible). I guess the bottom line is that you are saying that people now want proof of the existence of God.

Well God provides that as well. There are a many examples:

1. Incorruptibility of Saints (all have been tested and proven not to be mummified). Many incorruptible saint also exude the smell of roses. St. Jacinta of Fatima was relatively recently exhumed and found to have an incorruptible body. i.e. modern context.

2. Eucharistic miracles where the Eucharist is scientifically tested and proven to have turned in to human flesh. This mostly has happened in front of congregations. This has recently happened in Brazil i.e. modern context.

3. Eucharistic miracles where Christ's blood at communion has actually turned into real human blood in front of congregations.

4. Miracles associated with relics where congealed viles of blood are held up during Mass and turn into liquid on the same day, at the same time every year i.e. modern context.

5. Miracles such as the cloak of Our Lady of Guadalupe where a bomb was placed right next to the cloak, to try and destroy it, but when it was detonated everything around it was destroyed, but the cloak remained perfectly intact i.e. modern context.

6. The sun dancing around the sky at Fatima, during an apparition, which was observed by 70,000 people and was well reported by the media who were also eye witnesses i.e. modern context.

7. The stigmata which is observed in extremely holy people, most recently St. Pio i.e. modern context.

8. The appearance of crosses in the ground prior to spiritual events e.g. the appearance of a cross in the ground that kept being destroyed and then automatically kept reappearing at Balazaar. The events involving Bl. Alexandrina took place 20 years later at the site I am specifically talking about i.e. modern context.

9. The 13 year Eucharistic fast of Bl. Alexandrina which was also verified by doctors after her paralysis became worse and she had to spend long periods in hospital. In other words Bl. Alexandrina only received the Eucharist and water and did not eat any food for 13 years i.e. modern context.

10. Blessed Alexandrina (who I use because it is a modern example which is also on film) who underwent ecstasies 182 times despite being paralysed i.e. modern context.

10. Instantaneous healings of those who are prayed over. Yes, I know that you will say that it's all physiological or faked, but what about the recent examples of Cerebral Palsy being instantaneously healed in two cases by prayer which have also been verified by doctors. The reason I mentioned Cerebral Palsy is that it is not possible to fake this illness being healed by any stretch of the imagination i.e. modern context.

11. If you want something modern then what about speaking in tongues. This happens 'en masse' at most of the Catholic events that I attend. You might not like it, but you cannot say it does not happen. It's happening all the time in Britain and once again is scriptural i.e. modern context.

New Friend said...

Ora Pro Nobis

No I am not saying that people seek evidence of the existence of God. Most people I know, other obviously than those who hold a religious conviction, are pretty sure He doesn't exist and are not spending their time looking to disprove their opinion.

What I am saying is that for non believers the Bible is not the "word of God". How can it be when God doesn't exist? It is an important and historically interesting set of books. It is though the work of men, with just as much spin and editing as any modern journal. It contains many wise words but also much which reflects the age and the knowledge of when they were written. We have moved on and now need to find answers which reflect our age. By all means draw out that which is good and sensible in the Bible but don't rely upon it as the infallible answer to everything.

I know that your lengthy list of "miracles" is very important to your faith and that's fine by me. I hope you draw comfort and inspiration from them. However they do not convince me. I do not believe in anything spiritual and look for a natural scientific explanation for them. I think that each is capable of being explained in that way, through mass delusions and misinterpretations. The placebo effect is very powerful. I have discussed many with other Catholics in the past and have always found a convincing alternative explanation to be available.

Ora Pro Nobis said...

I will pray for your soul. there is really nothing left to do other than that.

+17

Nicolas Bellord said...

New Friend: Your posts do make me laugh and somehow cheer me up. "The Government .. is seeking to focus minds". Come off it the Government does not think I have a mind and could not care less anyway.

I am afraid though that we (Catholics) will be subject to an attempt to force us to conduct gay marriages whatever quadruple locks they pretend will prevent this happening.

Nor are we seeking to impose our views but to persuade people that the truth of the matter that a union that is other than that between a man and a woman can never be marriage. To trivialise sex and marriage in the way the State has done over the years is and will have dire consequences.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

Your cynicism about the political process depresses me. Surely as it is the best we have we ought to try to participate in it? Of course the Government knows you have a mind and has, and is, listening to what is being said and trying to accommodate your concerns. They could not have been clearer about their intention to protect those churches who do not wish to become involved and if anyone seeks to thwart that intention I feel sure they will introduce further legislation to ensure they do not succeed.

Seeking to persuade is obviously something I heartedly approve of. I am though not so persuaded and have found the style and content of the contribution made by those who oppose the change has tended to firm up my belief that such a change is desirable. In other words your arguments are having the reverse effect of that which is intended as they come over as mean spirited and selfish. I am quite sure I am not alone in such a view.

I would also like to debunk the frequently made claim that this matter was not part of the Conservative party's manifesto. I quote from it:-

""We will also consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage."

That, it seems to me, is exactly what they are doing!

+17

Nicolas Bellord said...

New Friend: I am not cynical about the political process if by cynical you refer to someone who per the SOED is "disposed to deny and sneer at the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions". I am just very disappointed with our politicians and increasingly wary of the establishment.

To-day we have a Labour ex-MP who has stolen some fifty grand from the taxpayer and yet is let off because she has had panic attacks and nightmares. I think I would have panic and nightmares if I had robbed a bank and found that the police were on to me.

I certainly participate in the system - voting at all elections and lobbying my MP on a variety of subjects. I spent some ten years lobbying the Government about the Equitable Life scandal only to discover that above a certain level politicians and officials are immune from the ordinary processes of the criminal law.

On Gay Marriage I joined 620,000 other people in signing a petition which the Government has said it will ignore.

Which of my arguments come over as "mean-spirited and selfish"? Why not respond to those arguments with argument rather than just abusing them.

As to your quote I have downloaded the 2010 Conservative Party Manifesto from:

http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Activist%20Centre/Press%20and%20Policy/Manifestos/Manifesto2010

but I could not find your quote. Could you please indicate where you found it.

Simon Platt said...

That quote of his doesn't come from the "Conservative" manifesto at all. From time to time it is dishonestly claimed so to do by charlatans who usually end up trying to elide "manifesto" with obscure supporting policy documents. It's all part of the political charade.

New Friend said...

Simon

Please see the link I provided in another comment. Although not in the main manifesto (which is by it's very nature a summary) it was it the detailed supporting publication "A Contract for Equalities". This is hardly obscure or unimportant and represents a commitment from the Conservatives to do exactly what it says.

mike cliffson said...

Fr Ray has just put up this link
http://quovadispetre.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/15-th-december-2012-rt.html
Bishop of
Pompey, of all places-
The Devil 'll be after him, so all our prayers are few.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

Let me answer you point by point.

I agree with your definition of cynical. However do you not think this remark fits it? "Come off it the Government does not think I have a mind and could not care less anyway." We are all disappointed from time to time with politicians, the establishment and just about everyone else. After all they are just humans and fallible. My own view, having dealt personally with a few of them, is that most of our politicians are honest folk who truly seek to serve the rest of us.

I don't think either of us has sufficient knowledge to comment upon the case of Margaret Moran, or her condition. I prefer to trust the professionals involved, and especially the judge, to decide what is appropriate. I get a sniff of more cynicism!

I am pleased to know you take a full part in the political process. I cannot agree though that anyone is immune from the due process of law. I would have thought that had been clearly demonstrated in recent years. Yet more cynicism? If you have any evidence to truly support such a claim I am sure there are many ways to get them investigated, verified and those involved prosecuted.

I am not aware of any statement from the Government that they will "ignore" the petition, or indeed any other one. That is different though to agreeing with it, following it's proposals and to believe that it should, just because 620,000 people signed it. That means more than 60 million people did not sign it. Imagine any Government agreeing to enact law based upon the number of people who sign a petition! How many would sign a petition to restore capital punishment, or to halve income tax for all public servants?

My remarks about being "mean spirited and selfish" were directed not at you personally but at "you" the generic opposition in this debate.

The quote I gave comes from here:-

http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/05/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/Manifesto/Equalities-Manifesto.ashx

Go to Page 14 for the relevant entry.

+11

Nicolas Bellord said...

New Friend: Obviously you think I am cynical. I do not in the terms of the definition I gave.

As to politicians I find they often give the appearance of honesty but then contradict themselves. The widespread abuse of the expenses system was a real eye-opener as to the extent of dishonesty.

As to impunity (escaping punishment for misdeeds in high places) we have seen lots of that. A peer is found to have taken bribes in the 100K region. What happens? Suspension for a year! If that is not impunity then what is? However in connection with Equitable Life there was a fraud at the instigation of the Financial Services Authority. If you want to read more go to:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmpubadm/41/41we11.htm

It seems that above a certain level politicians and public officials are immune from investigation in criminal matters. The Serious Fraud Office has repeatedly refused to take action on the curious ground that the regulators knew what was happening.

Anyway this is seriously off-topic.

On the Government ignoring the C4M petition they wrote in their response to the consultation:

3.3 Across the various methods by which people responded we had more responses to these questions
than to any others. Overall, views were divided. Of the 228,000 responses to the consultation, 53% agreed
that same-sex couples should be able to have a civil marriage ceremony and 46% disagreed (1% said don�t
know or not sure). This includes all responses that indicated their view on the principle of allowing samesex couples to get married, rather than just those who responded specifically to question 1. However,
these figures do not take account of those petitions we received, which were universally opposed.

See page 11 at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage/consultation-response?view=Binary

Thank for the reference to the source of your quote. This was a document issued a mere three days before the election on 3rd May 2010. In response to a question about it David Cameron is reported as saying the same evening to Sky News that he was not planning to change the law.

Saying that you are considering a question but have no plans to change the law in a document that was not part of the manifesto is not a manifesto commitment to what they have done.

+13

Mike said...

New Friend says:
I would also like to debunk the frequently made claim that this matter was not part of the Conservative party's manifesto. I quote from it:-
""We will also consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage."

Well, that clever. Hello Mr Strawman! NF cleverly puts it this way;
�claim that this matter�. Now, most people would probably agree that the objection is not that �this matter� was not in the Conservative Party manifesto but that there was no promise made in the Conservative Party manifesto that they would introduce legalisation to redefine marriage. There was no mention in the manifesto that one of the earliest things which Mr Cameron would do once he got his foot through the door of 10 Downing Street would be to announce that this would be put into effect before 2015. I didn�t notice a lot of �considering� going on before that announcement. And who exactly were the �we� referred to in that statement? It did not look like many Conservative MPs got much of a say over the matter before Dave announced that it was something which he definitely intended to do.

I also note that NF says �That, it seems to me, is exactly what they are doing!� ARE doing??? The government said as soon as it published its so-called consultation that the consultation was about �How� not about �Whether�. They aren�t �considering� the case for changing the law. They announced ages ago that that�s exactly what they intended to do.

New Friend said...

Mike

I would suggest that most people do not see this proposal as "redefining marriage" which is why it is not spoken about as such. Only those who oppose the move tend to see it this way. I think most people see it as simply extending it's scope. However you look at it the commitment covers both points of view, so I do not see any reason to complain:-

"We will also consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage"

The "considering" will be done in the correct way, through debates and votes in both of our Houses of Parliament. There is no guarantee that the Government will win the day. They have simply made their own view clear, have listened to the concerns and reacted to them to ensure that those who object won't have to be involved. I also anticipate that the Commons will be given a free vote to ensure that members can vote according to their conscience. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

+18

Catherine said...

Please please please stop responding to "New Friend"

and for a really useful take on the rent current debate check out the most recent publication from from Robert Harris at www.Anglican-Mainstream.net

New Friend said...

That's right you all just have a cosy chat amongst those who share the same point of view. You won't learn much, or change anything, but at least you will feel comfortable.

Mark Dobson said...

http://www.lovingit.co.uk/2012/03/st-margaret-clitherow-pilgrimage.html#comment-11771

If he can't separate the idea that people don't want listen to him from the idea that they are incapable of listening to others, I'd say that's his problem.

Lola said...

You know New Friend, after reading your thread, your lack of foresight and concern for children really takes me back. Marriage is for unifying people but is also for the stable creation and upbringing of children. It is children who will one day be the adults of these new relationships and I do not think they will in any way be content with not ever having been given the right to their own mother and father. The difference between your reasoning and that of the Church is that 'she' looks at these things in light of the greater good. Whereas Secularism can only offer you a selfish view for what works for 'my' needs and of course it offers no absolutes of truth, but asyou said earlier, you need well reasoned arguments. Well perhaps you might consider this? I presume you have a mother and a father who were at one time married. That is in essence every child's birthright. Marriage strengthens and unites the family for that child, yet you say it's okay to deny children this, they will just put up with anything they are given? Really? I don't think children will be the great advocates of gay 'marriages' the gay rights movement hopes they will be. Try to see the bigger picture if you can and use the term 'greater good' in your reasoning.

New Friend said...

Lola

I paused before replying as this thread has largely now died but you raise an important point.

The extension of the meaning of marriage now being considered is indeed for the "greater good", being part of a general move to greater inclusion and fairness for everyone in society.

Your view that children will be in some way disadvantaged as a consequence is clear evidence of the muddled thinking which is coming from the other side of this debate.

Whether we like it or not the fact is that many children are not now brought up by two loving, married parents. Many couples don't marry and there are many single parents

Therefore to claim that the stable upbringing of children depends upon marriage is simply wrong and does a considerable disservice to all those who do a great job in other ways.

Things have changed and so will the meaning of marriage. Eventually I guess you will get used to it.

+13

Santi said...

James,

I do not understand why the English Bishops just cannot say "NO" to legislation which is detrimental at social and religious levels. For a country that has produced the likes of St Thomas More and St John Fisher, I am truly astounded that the issue about gay "marriage" seems to be about safeguards, which is political posturings. Just say "NO" and remind your Bishops that Thomas Cranmer's cosy life was short-lived.

Jakob Knab said...

I do not agree with your view that �Thomas Cranmer's cosy life was short-lived�.

1. At the age of fourteen Thomas Cranmer was sent by his mother, who had in 1501 become a widow, to Cambridge. Little is known with certainty of his university career beyond the facts that he became a fellow of Jesus College in 1510 or 1511, that he had soon after to vacate his fellowship, owing to his marriage to "Black Joan," a relative of the landlady of the Dolphin Inn, and that he was reinstated in it on the death of his wife, which occurred in childbirth before the lapse of the year of grace allowed by the statutes.

2. At Nuremberg (Germany) Thomas Cranmer became acquainted with Andreas Osiander. But Osiander's house had another attraction of a different kind from theological sympathy. His niece Margaret won the heart of Cranmer, and in 1532 they were married.

3. On the 21st of March 1556 Cranmer was taken to St Mary's church in Oxford.

+14

Chrysostom said...

I like this website very much: you choose good topics, Mr Preece, sir, and most people write in a charitable and informed way.

However, someone who calls himself "New Friend" seems to think he (or she)can comment as often as he (or she) likes and with comments of great length. On this current topic, so far, he (or she)comments six times and the total number of lines comes to 71.

Please, might I ask this "New Friend" to start his own web site, or please might he be restricted to three comments and a maximum of 50 lines?

New Friend said...

Chrysostom

As your remarks are directed at me personally (which I thought was not permitted as it is an ad hominem attack) I trust you will permit me a reply. I believe I write in both a charitable and informed way as I bear no ill will to anyone. I accept you don't share my attitudes, but that doesn't mean I am misinformed.

This is James's blog and so it is up to him to decide whether to moderate it, or impose the type of restrictions you suggest, and I defer to his decision. I personally respect him for allowing unrestricted comments for I find moderated blogs, which edit out all critical comment, to be bland and boring. I don't read them because they are so predictable.

I have had some experience of a blog which covered the same subjects but started from the opposing viewpoint. Contributions were made regularly from traditional Catholics. However they were frequently strident, emotional and lacking in any charity at all. I would suggest that by comparison my contributions here are much more positive in nature.

roman catholic said...

to old friend, have you ever read any rights and wrongs in the holy bible, you may learn some interesting facts on does and donts or do you not believe in the holy scriptures it seems every debate the catholic religion are against you seem to try to run them down is it that you are anti-catholic or are you talking just for talkings sake you do seem to have a grudge against catholics, but saying that its up to you, so good luck and god bless you.RC.

Chrysostom said...

New Friend has now commented seven times. The number of lines he (or she)takes up come to 83.

louella said...

With this evil bill....the government has abdicated responsiblity for children. Gays of course are much more important than children. That's why from now on...marriage is for gays but not necessarily for children. Nice eh?!

New Friend said...

louella

I would be interested to learn the justification for your claim. Surely allowing gay couples to call their relationships "marriage" makes no difference at all to heterosexual couples or their children. The Government is also putting a great deal of resource into trying to ensure all children get a decent start in life (via Sure Start as a for instance) as it recognises that there is now some pretty poor parenting in society, nearly all of which is the responsibility of heterosexuals. This is hardly abdicating responsibility is it?

+11

louella said...

It does. A gay couple can never have children. Calling such a coupling marriage means that the purpose of marriage ie procreation is now irrelevant to marriage. And that is stupid as well as evil.

This is a deeply anti-child move. It even puts the needs of children below the wants of adults. It eliminates children from the purpose of marriage. But then hey....we are an anti-child society.

New Friend said...

louella

Perhaps I ought to have expected that answer, which is the standard justification given as the reason why same sex marriage should not be permitted. I was hoping for something new and more meaningful.

Many, and I suspect most of us, don't share the opinion that the purpose of marriage is procreation. Procreation is the result of sex. Marriage does not have to be involved. Nor do those who marry necessarily wish to, or can, procreate. My wife and I cannot have children.

Allowing gay couples to marry makes no difference at all to anyone else. To seek to deny them this, on the basis you describe, is discriminatory, uncharitable scaremongering and shines a very unfavourable light upon your Church. It puts you in the same camp as some pretty unsavoury groups.

watchman said...

i am not surprised you dont have any children you spend that much time trying to blaspheme the catholic religion you have not got time to plan, or is it willy nilly and then thats were the awfull abortions comes into force unwanted and murdered, the holy bible confirms thou shalt not kill.

Nicolas Bellord said...

Watchman: I think your comment oversteps the mark. Not having children can be extremely painful for many married couples. To my mind New Friend may be the irritant who produces the pearl of truth from us. Is he not an opportunity to think deeply about the truths of our faith and to respond with rational arguments rather than just asking him to go away?

watchman said...

nicolas bellord, who said anything about not having children is an issue, i dont find new friend to be irritant if you do it was me who got the agnostics out of new friend, and i have never said go away i would more than likely have you go away okay nicolas.

louella said...

Opinions don't count. Reality does. And....marriage is the only institution for the bearing and rearing of children. And will stay that way as God has appointed it so.

Those with delusions will say marriage is anything they want it to be....but just as a carrot is not a car no matter how much you want it to be....then gay marriage is not marriage no matter how much you want it to be. You are the unsavoury one!

New Friend said...

louella

That, no how often you say it, is just an opinion and I am really sorry to tell you that they do count. Yours matters just as much as mine, but no more than it. Using God as your justification cuts no ice with those who don't share your opinion.

No-one is forcing you, or those who share your opinion, to accept the alternative viewpoint within your own community. Indeed I would fight hard to ensure that nothing is done to compromise your right not to recognise gay marriage.

All that is asked of you is to accept that if our parliament does change the law that you accept the right of others to comply with it. Does that make me unsavoury?

Salisbury John said...

again....nf is using the 'boo word' tactic which [according to the BBC's John Humphreys] is to mark out your opponent with such negative labels thereby preventing any reasonable sounding defense of their postiion without seeming extremist yourself. It is the territory-marking nature of a mongrel with a cocked leg....

New Friend said...

John

You make ad hominem remarks and don't answer ANY of the points I have made. These are not "labels", positive or negative.

If there is a "reasonable sounding defence" of the position being discussed I have yet to hear it but there is always time.

Chrysostom said...

New friend has now commented 10 times and has used 103 lines.

New Friend said...

Chrysostom

My friend, has it ever occurred to you that I seem to be the only one contributing to the debates who holds an alternative view? As a consequence, when a response seems necessary to balance what is being suggested, there is no-one else available other than myself. If others joined in you would soon see less from me.

At least I am dealing with the issues rather than just counting the number of lines! What does that add to our understanding of the matters being considered? You always have the option of ignoring my words. I ignore certain contributors who I find wordy and predictable. If you think that about me, you can too.

+11

Catherine said...

15th December 2012

Dear Mr Cameron

From Rt. Rev. Philip A. Egan, Bishop of Portsmouth
I am writing to you to send you best wishes from the priests and people of the Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth, and the promise of our prayers for you, as you carry the heavy responsibility of leading our great nation. However, I am also writing to ask you, indeed to urge you, to change course on your intention to introduce same-sex marriage.

You have said you are an enthusiastic supporter of marriage and that you do not want "gay people to be excluded from a great institution." Yet I wish respectfully to point out that behind what you say lurks a basic philosophical misconception about the nature of 'equality.' Equality can never be an absolute value, only a derivative and relative value. After all, a man cannot be a mother nor a woman a father, and so men and women can never be absolutely equal, only relatively equal, since they are biologically different. So too with marriage. Marriage, ever since the dawn of human history, is a union for life and love between a man and a woman. It is a complementary relationship between two people of the opposite sex, the man and the woman not being the same, but different. They are not, in other words, absolutely equal but relatively equal. This is why gay couples, two men or two women, are not being �excluded� from marriage; they simply cannot enter marriage.

By enabling gays to 'marry' and by equating the union of gay people with marriage, however well-intentioned, you are not only redefining what we mean by marriage but actually undermining the very nature, meaning and purpose of marriage. Marriage, and the home, children and family life it generates, is the foundation and basic building block of our society. If you proceed with your plans, you will gravely damage the value of the family, with catastrophic consequences for the well-being and behaviour of future generations. The 2011 Census shows the parlous state of the institution of marriage which you claim to believe in so strongly, and of family life in general, with one in two teenagers no longer living with their birth parents and over 50% of adults living outside of marriage.

Can you imagine the confusion and the challenge for teenagers as they grow up and seek to reach a fully mature and integrated sexuality? This is why I fail to see how your intentions can possibly strengthen the institution of marriage and family life. Rather they will dilute it.

More, you are ignoring the huge opposition of Christians, Jews and Muslims alike, as well as that of a huge number of ordinary people. You are imposing the aspirations of a tiny minority on the vast majority. Make no mistake, the change you are proposing is of immense significance. By it, you will be luring the people of England away from their common Christian values and Christian patrimony, and forcing upon us all a brave new world, artificially engineered. What you are proposing will smother the traditional Christian ethos of our society and in time strangle the religious freedom of the Catholic Church in Britain to conduct its mission. There is no sanction whatsoever in the Bible and the Judaeo-Christian tradition for gay marriage. I cannot see how anyone who claims to be a Christian can possibly justify what you are intending to do.

I know you have spoken of the 'quadruple lock' and other legal safeguards. Yet for me many grave concerns remain about the brave new world you are fashioning in the name of the false gods of equality and diversity. For example, will I as a Christian have to support your ideology when preaching? Will you exempt the Church, its resources and premises, from charges of discrimination if it declines to host same-sex social activities? Will Catholic schools, Catholic societies, Catholic charities and Catholic institutions be free (and legally protected) to teach the full truth of Christ and the real meaning of life and love?

I appreciate how politically difficult it can be to undertake a U-turn and to sustain the attendant criticism such would bring. But when it is a matter of the truth, and the reasons are cast-iron clear, a U-turn would be hailed by history only as brave and courageous. This is why, like a Thomas a Becket appealing to Henry II, I do not hesitate to ask you to consider doing what is the right and just thing to do. Otherwise, will we ever be able to forget that it was the leader of the Conservative Party (sic) who finally destroyed marriage as a lasting, loving and life-giving union between a man and a woman?

I assure you of my respect, best wishes and prayers.

Rt. Rev. Philip A. Egan
Bishop of Portsmouth
CC: Priests and People of Diocese of Portsmouth

Chrysostom said...

New friend has now commented 11 times and has used 119 lines.

+10

Sapientia said...

I can't believe New Friend is still turning up here after all these months. Every thread is constantly disrupted by his disrespect and heresy, and it is impossible to follow the discussions while people continue to respond to him. Please consider ignoring him so James' blog can become the interesting illuminating place again that it always used to be.

New Friend said...

Sapientia

Yet another ad hominem post! I do not show any disrespect. I simply attempt to challenge some of the views which are expressed. I surely cannot be guilty of heresy as I have never believed in your religion. I have no interest per se in your religion, which I regard as for you alone. I am only interested in the application of some of your beliefs in the wider world.

I will of course "stop turning up" once the attitudes and proposals being expressed become more reasonable and in tune with common sense. Until then, and with James's indulgence, I will be here from time to time. At least that way you will know what some others think of your ideas.

Chrysostom said...

New Friend has now commented 12 times and has used 127 lines.
He or she does not know the meaning of "ad hominem".

Mark Dobson said...

I�m quite happy for anyone to use as many lines as they like so long as they have something worthwhile to say.

It is a little ironic when you end all your comments with a minor litany (though I have no objection to that either)!

New Friend said...

Chrysostom

Oh dear! I rather think it might be you who does not understand.

Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

Several of the recent responses fit that description very well. I have a thick skin and won't respond to any of them. I will just keep making my points as appropriate.

Phil Atkinson said...

I like reading New Friend's comments. Because he lacks all intellectual and moral grounding, one can never tell what faddish new orthodoxy he's going to espouse next. The hilarious thing is that neither can he.

Mark Dobson said...

Hmm. Well I mostly find it tedious, but in my better moments I find it sad.

Christian said...

Mr Atkinson

Surely, the greatest intellectual grounding is curiosity.

I often read this blog, despite not being a Catholic, out of curiosity and interest. I would defend New Friend's comments on the ground that they are different, and should be welcomed for it.

But then it is not up to me to decide the nature of this blog. That is the decision of James. If this blog is intended more for moral purposes than intellectual then maybe debate should not be encouraged.

I do think though that if intellectual discussion is to be practised, there may need to be some leniency with those who do not think the same as you.

Christian

Mockery of the Sacraments said...

I shouldn't worry about it folks. Divorce is legal. Remarrying while your spouse from your first marriage is still alive is legal. There's a sneer at Christ in the Gospels right there.

LOL The people having been mocking the sacrament of marriage for a long time without gays & lesbians doing anything.

Tom said...

Well we could call it a civil partnership, sometimes known (wrongly)as marriage. This is a temporary legal union between two (at present) people one male and one female (also at present).
On the otherhand we have the Sacrament of Holy matrimony...

I also note with great amusement the legal problem of the proposed new civil arrangement,eg.
1. Consumation.
2. Adultery