Marriage: Just two people in lurve..?

Blogged by James Preece on 29th January 2013

My thanks to New Friend for taking the time to answer my question...

There were many other reasons for marriage. You identify some. Others were political, some to secure family fortunes, some just for companionship. Some to find a carer for elderly parents. Some to find a home maker. Marriage was always for a variety of reasons. It is NOT just a recent development. It is a particularly myopic religious viewpoint which attempts to suggest that in the past marriage was only to produce children in a "responsible" way.

[link]

We need to distinguish between the reasons individual people get married vs the reason a society has marriage in the first place.

Individuals may get married for companionship or so they can immediately divorce and run off with half of the wealth or just in the hope that the old fella dies soon and they can bag the inheritance. Those things all happen, but they are clearly not the purpose of marriage.

No society has ever said "hey, let's have Marriage so that people can have a crack at scamming inheritance money!"

The other reasons New Friend gives - to maintain political harmony, to ensure the stability of families through the inheritance of wealth, to ensure the elderley have carers... These all amount to my original premise - that Marriage is a social institution between couples and society to ensure that children grow up in the best possible way.

There have certainly been differences over the years about what is the best environment for children growing up. In some societies the priority has been on bringing up children to be good carers, in others cases the priority has been on averting a war between two kingdoms while in other cases the goal has been to keep wealth in the family. So not always "best for children" in the sense of "that which puts the needs of the children first" - you know, the myopic sense of a stable home with a mother and father. Sometimes "best for children" in the utilitarian sense of "that which produces the kind of children we want".

That said, I think it would be cynical in the extreme to suppose that Marriage has primarily been selfish. As New Friend goes on to say "Good parents, married or not, will always care for their children because they love them". Is it really such a leap of faith to think that these good parents who "will always care for their children" might feel compelled to consider the fate of their future grandchildren?

Anyway...

The interesting thing to note about the above is that every single one of these reasons without exception involves the institution of marriage being used (or abused) as a tool to manage heterosexual fertility in a way that benefits society and/or children.

Even when we disagree with the goals, we seem to agree on what Marriage is.

Rate this blogentry: + -

+29

This Item Tagged With:

Reader Comments

New Friend said...

James

I think we are talking about different things. You are talking about sacramental marriage, or "Holy Matrimony", whilst I am just talking about marriage. I am sure you know better than I the history of the involvement of the RC Church in marriage, and when, why and how it happened. Marriage though has a much longer history than this. Was the purpose ALWAYS to "manage heterosexual fertility in a way that benefits society and/or children"? I really don't think it was at all. There were a great variety of reasons why marriage evolved, which were unconnected to fertility or children. There is a huge amount of information available to support that. Much too much to reproduce here so I suggest that you Google it and read for yourselves. If you want to read just one, try this:-

http://uktv.co.uk/yesterday/item/aid/581541

I also question the claim that sacramental marriage is only for your claimed purpose. Consider this extract from the C of E marriage service:-

"The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together in the delight and tenderness of sexual union and joyful commitment to the end of their lives.
It is given as the foundation of family life in which children are [born and] nurtured and in which each member of the family,in good times and in bad, may find strength, companionship and comfort, and grow to maturity in love."

Note that commitment and family life get mentioned before children and that them being "born" (pro-created)" is secondary to them being nurtured!

What is unquestionable is that marriage has evolved and continues to evolve. Society has changed and with those changes come an expectation that marriage will adapt to serve society's current needs. Nothing remains untouched by progress and to try to do so is pointless.

For those who believe that marriage is designed by God for the gift of children nothing is likely to convince you otherwise. Nor do I. There is also nothing being proposed which requires you to behave any differently. However the religious lobby no longer are a majority and as they don't own the right to define the meaning of the word it seems very likely that change will indeed happen.

+13

James said...

The uktv link you give begins (emphasis mine)...

"The union of a man and a woman recognised by authority or ceremony, is as old as civilization itself and marriage of some kind is found in virtually every society. But throughout the centuries marriage has taken many different forms."

"Early marriage was borne of ancient societies' need to secure a safe environment in which to breed, handle the granting of property rights, and protect bloodlines. Ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow.

And this proves your point how?

New Friend said...

James,

Your premise seems to be that marriage is solely to do with pro-creation, and the subsequent bringing up of children:-

"the reason a society has marriage in the first place"

"every single one of these reasons without exception involves the institution of marriage being used (or abused) as a tool to manage heterosexual fertility in a way that benefits society and/or children."

Even in the quote you select other matters are clearly mentioned as also being reasons for the development of marriage. Additionally being in a safe environment to be ABLE to breed does not mean that breeding was ALWAYS the primary purpose.

These quotes, along with the history of marriage itself, all need to be considered in context. Another quote from the article is:-

"But even in these early times, marriage was much about love and desire as it was social and economic stability."

Nicolas Bellord said...

I think it would be useful to remind ourselves of the definition of marriage in Canon Law which is repeated in the Catechism at 1601:

The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized person has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

"By its nature" - I would therefore maintain that marriage is a good and the nature thereof can be ascertained by all men of good will and discernment as being defined as above.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

Which is perfectly fine for those who accept Canon Law, or any others prepared to accept that definition. To repeat once again, there is no compulsion being proposed.

There are though many who do not agree with this definition and reject the idea that a Church's Canon Law has any bearing on how they should view things.

Time alone will tell who is in the majority. Maybe the tide of change will be held back for a while, but this issue won't go away and I am really very sure that eventually same sex marriage will be permitted. I am also pretty sure that in a few years we will all wonder what all the fuss was about. It will be in that same compartment of our lives that abortion, contraception and divorce occupy. Accepted by just about everyone except the RC Church.

Nicolas Bellord said...

We will have to wait and see about the compulsion bit!

Nicolas Bellord said...

And of course Canon Law is reflecting Natural Law.

New Friend said...

And of course Natural Law is reflecting the opinions of those who define it.

Nicolas Bellord said...

I do not think people who are interested in Natural Law pretend to "define it" but rather to discover what that Law is. A scientist may have opinions about his particular branch of study in the natural sciences but in the end he is looking for the truth as to how actually things are i.e. what the laws of nature are. In the same way we should be looking at what the laws of nature are as concerns marriage.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

It was yourself who claimed that Cannon Law defined marriage, which is repeated in the Catechism, and that Canon Law is reflecting Natural Law.

So it seems to me that for those who accept Canon Law that the search for the truth is over. It is to be found in the Catechism.

Nicolas Bellord said...

We would accept the definition in the Catechism as a matter of Faith. However as a matter of practical reasonableness one can deduce the truth about Marriage from the Natural Law.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

Do you therefore accept that as a matter of practical reasonableness that I can also deduce, from whatever source I choose, call it natural law if you wish, the truth about marriage. Which is not the truth that you seem to have found. Once again this is all just a matter of opinion. You have yours. I have mine.

Nicolas Bellord said...

Of course we could both use practical reasonableness to discover the truth about marriage as it exists in natural law. If we came to opposite conclusions then one of us must be right and the other wrong. There is an absolute truth in the end!

New Friend said...

Nicolas

I was not proposing that any search for the truth be restricted to your concept of natural law. I was proposing to use whatever source I chose.

I know that Catholics believe that there is an absolute truth for everything. Whilst I agree that for many things that is true, I do not think it can be for anything which is, of itself, an imprecise concept. As I believe marriage falls into this category, because of the various opinions about what it is, I don't think either one of us will ever be able to claim we have discovered the truth, for I am not sure it really does exist. What exists are a number of different truths, dependant on a variety of opinions.

Nicolas Bellord said...

You might like to read John Finnis's essay on the subject available at:

http://web.mit.edu/anscombe/www/finnismarriage.pdf

New Friend said...

Nicolas

I tried, but very soon it became pretty clear that this guy has an agenda and is writing from a preconceived position. I therefore did some research on him, which confirmed my suspicions. If he is not homophobic, then he is pretty close to being so. He certainly seems obsessed with homosexuality in society.

As the arguments I read are very Catholic in their reasoning I can understand why you find them appealing. However, it all seems to start from Aquinas and his definition of the morality of sexual relations being based upon the good of marriage, and the Roman law definition "the mating of man and woman, which we call "marriage".

We part company immediately at this point. If you start from the wrong place then you are always likely to go in the wrong direction and end up in the wrong place.

It's fine for Catholics to hold that view. It is not fine for them to expect everyone else to. Roman Law does not apply to us. It is an outdated and inappropriate model upon which to base an informed, inclusive and tolerant modern approach to this subject.

Nicolas Bellord said...

John Finnis's ideas on Natural Law originate from Aristotle as is explained in his book "Natural Law & Natural Rights". His wikipedia entry starts:

"Finnis is one of the most prominent living legal philosophers. His work, Natural Law and Natural Rights, is regarded as one of the definitive works of natural law philosophy,[2] drawing from the Catholic Thomistic philosophical tradition to challenge the dominant Anglo-positivist approach to legal philosophy taken by John Austin and H. L. A. Hart."

Yes he then builds upon Aquinas's adoption of the ideas of Aristotle in his theory of natural law.

I do not think it useful to dismiss an argument just because they are Catholic! One needs to look at the actual arguments.

Finnis has written on a host of subjects - witness the five volumes of his essays published by the OUP. He has written on homosexuality and his views are naturally prominent in view of the current debate about homosexuality.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

I don't dismiss his arguments because they are Catholic. I reject them because they are outdated and wrong. I recognise them as being Catholic, and can see why they might appeal to you.

Might I give you a reference? It is much shorter and easier to read than yours:-

http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/2013/01/is-the-church-still-relevant/

Nicolas Bellord said...

I have read that! It is written by somebody who says they are a non-believer but calls himself Christian which strikes me as a contradiction in terms. I could say "I tried, but very soon it became pretty clear that this guy has an agenda and is writing from a preconceived position." But I won't! But it is way off what we are discussing here which is the nature of marriage.

However you have revealed yourself as a bit of relativist when you say "What exists are a number of different truths, dependant on a variety of opinions." If two opinions are contradictory they cannot both be true? If that were the case then debate becomes pointless.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

I am not a "bit" of a relativist! I am a lot of a relativist! I much prefer relativism to absolutism, which I believe leads to disagreements, on to arguments, then to disputes and eventually to conflict. Much better to accept that people can sometimes look at the same thing and see something very different. To try to claim that the "truth" exists for everything is nonsense. It can only be claimed when there is no dispute over what is being seen. To claim to have found the truth, when others disagree, is simply self righteousness. When something is an imprecise concept, as is marriage, then there cannot be one absolute truth. We can agree the truth of your opinion, and what flows from it, but it will always remain only your opinion.

I thought Mr Miller explained his position very well, and that it applies to many people in the UK who were brought up as Christians. They continue to value the cultural aspects but, having had the benefit of all that science has discovered, no longer share the beliefs.

I also think it is highly relevant to the current debate on the nature of marriage because of this:-

"too many of the faithful have clung to bronze-age certitudes in matters of gender and sexual morality, as if mere rigidity could buttress them from secularity. It can�t. Rather, it becomes all too easy to caricature Christians as irrelevant cranks, obsessed by where one should put one�s genitalia"

This is just how many see you and why your attitude to the definition of marriage is being rejected as out of touch.

Nicolas Bellord said...

NF: So you are a full-blown relativist. So in a mathematical problem if I say x=6 and you say x=7 we can both be right? Relativism strikes me as a lazy cop-out. Truth is difficult to ascertain as St Paul says in to-days reading that we see things as in a mirror darkly but one day we will see the full truth. In the meantime we should do our best to ascertain the truth.

Your Mr Miller calls himself a "Christian Atheist". In the ordinary definitions of those two words that itself is an irresolvable contradiction. Either you believe that Christ was divine and are a Christian or you are an atheist and believe no such thing. You cannot be both. But perhaps a relativist believes that one can be a Christian and an Atheist at the same time. There seems little point in debating with a relativist if they take that line

Mr Miller was upset that the innocent party in a marriage who has been deserted could not remarry in the eyes of the Anglican Church. I wonder whether he inquired into the reasons that the Church takes that line. I am afraid there are principles which can lead to very hard decisions but abandoning a principle because of a hard case can lead to much more harm. As Christians we believe this is a passing life and we often have to put up with much suffering but that that suffering can be put to good effect.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

Mathematics is a precise science, for which absolute answers, and therefore absolute truth, is available. As I explained it is only when the concept is imprecise that it is not. Searching for "the truth" in such circumstances is pointless. Much better to listen to the other views, learn how to respect them and find compromises which enable us to all live together in peace and harmony.

Mr Miller is no more mine, than he is yours. I just thought his words interesting and relevant. I also think he is as entitled to consider himself a "Christian Atheist" as much as he is able to consider himself anything else. You have your opinion, he has his, and he gives his reasoning pretty well.

I didn't get the sense he was upset about the organist being refused a church marriage as much as he was pointing out the consequences of this level of inflexibility. Absolutism at work to the benefit of no-one and the harm of at least one.

Nicolas Bellord said...

As to mathematics might I suggest you study Godel's incompleteness theorem. I am afraid I find relativism (by which I understand that two contradictory opinions can be regarded as both being true) utterly irrational and precludes any sensible dialogue.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

But WE can agree about the precision of mathematics being true can't we?

Of course, two contradictory opinions about precisely the same thing cannot both be true! However, such things are necessarily limited to things, and events, that are being considered equally, by all parties, in every way, including context. Relativism is a much misunderstood concept, especially by those who are fixated by the idea of absolutism. From the OED:-

"the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute"

For a great many things the only truth is that there is more than one opinion about what it is. Respect both, or all, and society makes progress. Insist that your opinion is the truth and we end up with disputes.

Mark Dobson said...

I agree with you, but there�s no �of course� about it!

You can�t expect anyone to just swallow an assertion like that.

Mark Dobson said...

Impressed with the person who yayed being able to find the comment I referred to (on the assumption that they actually did)!

New Friend said...

Nicolas

Yes we will and as there are plenty of scare stories being floated I can understand why people are nervous.

However the reassurances are very precise and, I believe, sincere. Those, like me, who believe in freedom of choice, would stand up for yours, just as much as they do for anyone else. I don't think you have any need to worry too much.

+11

Chrysostom said...

As I write this, there are ten comments, five by "New Friend". He, or she, takes up some 54 lines, which is more than all the other comments added together. His, or her, English needs correcting, especially his, or her, use, or omission, of the comma and the hyphen. Just take the first sentence in one comment: "However the reassurances are very precise...": the omission of the comma after "However" clouds the meaning. I suggested before to you that no one should be allowed more than three comments; I am unaware of anyone other than New Friend ever putting more than three.
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 were martyred because they resisted the advances of a homosexual paedophile � pray for us.
St Ignatius of Antioch - pray for us.

Mark Dobson said...

Mark 16:15 � And he said to them, �Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.�

I�m not sure we should be refusing to engage with or demeaning the part of creation that doesn�t meet our standards of English.

Catrin said...

Why can't I marry my Dad? I love him. He loves me.How dare the state tell us we can't marry each other!

Nicolas Bellord said...

This is in response to New Friend but I have put it as a new comment rather then using the reply facility in order to avoid the indenting which can become a bit tedious.

I mentioned Godel's theorem as it does raise very difficult questions about truth in mathematics. It proves that there are things in mathematics that are true but cannot be proved. Golbach's conjecture is an example. The conjecture says that any number is the sum of two prime numbers. People have tested this for numbers up to those with as many as 19 digits and found it to be true but nobody has so far been able to prove it. So even in mathematics there are things that one can arrive at as being true by practical reasonableness without being able to prove them.

Mathematics can largely be proved but I do not see it as utterly different from other areas of human research. NF suggests that
'Searching for "the truth" in such circumstances is pointless'. The circumstances he mentions are where "the concept is imprecise". That seems to be a circular argument. If searching for the truth is pointless then the concept will remain imprecise.

NF goes on to suggest that one should just accept varying or even contradictory theories in order to avoid disputes and conflict. The problem with this is that it is important to know the truth - think of truths in medicine for example - as acting on error can give rise to harm.

Sociology and anthropology are relevant to the marriage issue. Are we really going to say that trying to find out about the truth as to the nature of marriage is pointless so that we can pretend that it is okay to say that it is something that it is not?

As for the OED definition: ""the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute". I can accept that in respect of knowledge and morality but truth? Surely it is the perception of or opinion as to what is true that might vary but there is absolute truth in the end.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

I don't think I have mentioned the need to prove anything for it to be known as being true. Indeed I said that WE could accept that mathematics, being a precise science, must be true. Some things may not yet have been proved, might never be proved, but can be accepted by us as true. So I don't think we have any real disagreement there.

That though is not what I am talking about. I think you are missing the point. Which is that before anyone can search for the truth about anything it has to be established exactly what is being considered. If there is the slightest variance about what is being reviewed, then there is always likely to be different opinions about what the truth is.

Now you seem to feel that is a circular argument and I think I need to help you to realise that it really isn't. It is a subtle difference, but an important one. It is too easy to dismiss the fact that some people's understanding of words and concepts will vary greatly from others. In such circumstances it is not simply a matter of searching for which one is true. You have accepted the concept of relativity in relation to knowledge and morality and it is in play here. If something means different things to different people because of cultural differences then there is no absolute truth available. Thus it is with the current disagreement over the meaning of marriage. The religious, and some who follow their line of thought, are completely convinced that marriage can only be between a man and a woman and involves the possibility of pro-creation. The other line, taken by the non religious, is that marriage has always meant the permanent bonding of a couple but that culturally, in the past, this has been restricted to man/woman relationships, due to the prejudice shown towards homosexuality. They believe that marriage, like everything else, evolves and now that homosexuality is no longer illegal it is logical to now allow same sex marriage.

Both of those positions are true, because each of the groups are starting from a different position. The word is the same. The concept is different. To try to force a search for "the truth" in these circumstances is pointless. All you really will say is you must accept my opinion about this.

I have not suggested that you must accept contradictory theories, just to avoid conflicts. I want different opinions to be understood and respected. You don't have to agree with them, or accept them.

Of course, searching for scientific truths, like medicine, is important. However, even here there are plenty of alternative opinions. I am unconvinced by homeopathy, chiropractic or acupuncture and would be very unlikely to ever use them. However, I respect that others disagree and don't have any desire to stop them if they want to use them.

There will be an absolute truth to be found for every opinion. The problem is that there are so many opinions.

Nicolas Bellord said...

New Friend: You say "You have accepted the concept of relativity in relation to knowledge and morality and it is in play here."

I think you have misunderstood me. I accept that people in different cultures, societies and historical contexts will have different opinions as to what is knowledge and morality but as regards what is true in knowledge and morality I believe that there is ultimately only one truth and it is totally irrational to believe that different and contradictory opinions are all true.

Further I have been at pains to point out that opposition to same-sex "marriage" is based upon Natural Law which is ascertainable knowledge that does not need any religious revelation.

You talk about the permanent bonding of a couple. How can that happen between a same-sex couple? It is quite obvious that both in law and practice this concept of marriage is intended to be an open relationship where no sexual fidelity is required. It is confusing friendship with marriage. As for permanence I doubt if there is going to be much of that or that it is even intended.

I think it is disappointing that you think the search for truth is pointless. Ignorance is not bliss!

New Friend said...

Nicolas

The only conclusion to be drawn from your second paragraph is that, once you have decided you have found the truth that, anyone holding an alternative view to yours, is wrong.

As the Catholic Church proclaims that it already holds the "Truth", it follows that all other religions, the Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and all other versions of Christianity, are wrong.

That is a pretty insulting attitude to take and is fundamentally dangerous for all of us. Almost every belief has validity and is true for those who believe it, just as your faith is true for you.

Your idea that the meaning of marriage can only be determined through "natural law" is merely an opinion, just as it is an opinion that other things are also worthy of consideration. To resolve such disputes we do it in the same way as we try to do all disputes, via our parliament. I am watching the debate as I write, and there seems no doubt to me as to which side has all the most persuasive arguments. You would learn a great deal through listening to it, so I hope you are.

I think your suggestion that same sex couples have any less fidelity than heterosexual couples is both wrong, and very insulting to them. It reveals the dubious attitude towards homosexuality which I believe underlies much of the opposition. I would encourage some reflection on this.

I quite agree that ignorance is not bliss, but that it is being very clearly shown by those who oppose the proposed change and not by me.

Nicolas Bellord said...

Insofar as other religions disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches I naturally believe them to be wrong. That is a rational position and I quite accept that people in other religions reflect the same. I do not see why that should be regarded as insulting - indeed you seem to be a keen supporter of people having different even erroneous views?

As for being dangerous that depends upon the reaction of other people for which I cannot be responsible.

I believe that it is possible to discover what the nature of marriage is by practical reasoning. It is important to discover the truth about anything. Being in error and acting upon that error can lead to harm being done. Marriage is a good and does good. A perverted form of marriage is NOT a good and will do harm.

We have previously discussed your idea that truth or whatever you call it can only be decided in Parliament. Parliament is useful for some things but not everything. I would hate to think that medical science, for example, depended upon the opinions of MPs.

Yes I am watching the debate. I am impressed by the many speakers opposing the bill. I note how many in favour openly declare their own homosexual inclinations. I suspect that the House of Commons has a far higher proportion of such people than in the general population and that there may be a bias as a result!

Simon Platt said...

I, too, have been struck by the number of professed homosexuals in parliament. It was suggested to me today that a lack of family commitment enables pursuit of a political career. I suppose there's probably something in that. I head someone else today compare politicians to sufferers from a sexual pathology - they tend to be risk taking narcissists, apparently.

God help us.

concerned said...

to new friend, can you honestly say two women have a sexual intercourse which is normal or is it abnormal, the same with two men is the sexual intercourse they have normal, and could either produce a child as this is what sexual intercourse is all about, as far as i am concerned its backward abnormal far from a normal way to do it iam afraid, think about it.

New Friend said...

I don't think it is either the issue or anything to do with us. No-one can choose their sexuality, so why should anyone else penalise them for it? It has nothing to do with children. Homosexual couples can, and do, raise children. Every couple can stay celibate if they so choose, or have to. It is none of our business. Every couple in a loving, bonded, one to one relationship ought to be able to dignify their relationship as a marriage, if they so choose.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

So trying to evangelise those who hold other faiths, with as strong a conviction as you, telling them that they are wrong and that you alone actually know the truth, is not being provocative? If they then react in any way, it is not your responsibility?

As was made very clear during the debate there are at least two very different approaches to the meaning of marriage. I really don't care too much whether you regard how people arrive at their views as "practical reasoning", or anything else. What matters is that they have sincerely held views. There is no dispute that marriage is a good. There is a dispute that it's extension is "perverted" or that it will do harm. Indeed there is a strong argument that it's good will be strengthened by a wider group of people being able to avail of it, as it emphasises it's importance.

Parliament is not where truth is determined. It is where the balance of opinions is determined. Medical science is determined in the laboratories, but quite rightly regulated by parliament.

I did not get any sense of a high number of homosexuals speaking, perhaps because I don't look for such things. I listen to the argument and not who is saying it. Some speakers against the bill made some fair, and interesting points, about potential pitfalls in it's future application. Points which need consideration and probable attention. The overwhelming impression I gained was that it was heartening to see our parliament being brave and sensible, in the face of some regressive attitudes.

Nicolas Bellord said...

NF: You really should not imagine scenarios and then attribute them to me. I would try and illustrate the truth in the hope of convincing someone of its truth. I would not necessarily say that my opponent was wrong but hope that he would take on board what I was saying. In persuading I would try not to provoke a hostile reaction.

As to the debate. I found the proponents superficial in their arguments. They seemed to think that a loving relationship was all that was required for a couple to marry. However the essential extra element of marriage, beyond the benefits of loving relationship, is the fact that it is between a man and a woman and therefore is open to procreation as a result of sexual intercourse.

A same-sex couple cannot pretend to procreation and indeed if they are indulging in homosexual activity they are indulging in a perverted activity which is extremely unhealthy and a misuse of sex.

Yes I listened to what speakers had to say in the debate and I was struck by how high a proportion in favour of the bill openly declared their homosexual inclinations. If they declare such, one is entitled to take notice of it.

Anyway the result of this is a major split in the Conservative party and that I regard as a disaster. Cameron seems careless of the party he leads and I fear for England as a result of this.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

I know you are a decent guy and that in practice you would not do what I have suggested. All I am saying is that is what the position that Catholics take logically leads them to.

You repeat the argument about procreation, which is not accepted by me, and by many others, as you would have heard during the debate. You reach one conclusion. I reach another and it seems that my opinion is the majority one.

Nor is your opinion that homosexual behaviour is unhealthy anything but an opinion. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter under review. Homosexuals can marry and remain totally celebrate if they choose too. We have no need, and no right, to enquire into, or involve ourselves, in such matters.

That the conservative party has split over this issue is undoubtedly true. I though regard that as a promising sign, because it shows they have a leadership which is prepared to lead, reform and face the future rather than live in the past. If they carried on as they used to they would have been consigned to history and become irrelevant. Too many out of touch people living in the past and with no clue to where we are now or where we need to be. Cameron is far from careless. He is a visionary who can obviously see things much clearer than many others.

Nicolas Bellord said...

NF: You say "Nor is your opinion that homosexual behaviour is unhealthy anything but an opinion."

Surely whether it is unhealthy or not is a matter of ascertainable truth. Perhaps you missed the report earlier in the week about the increase in HIV infections.

Civil Partnerships and the SSM bill are an indorsement of homosexual sexual practices as being normal and acceptable. If such practices are unhealthy then they should be discouraged rather than indorsed.

The idea of Cameron as a visionary I find utterly laughable but let us not stray into a debate about politics!

New Friend said...

Nicolas

Whether homosexual behaviour (by which you mean their sexual behaviour) is "unhealthy" is a quite separate debate and unconnected with this one. Passing the SSM bill is most definitely not an endorsement of such behaviour for it is completely silent on the issue. Indeed, it is none of our business. People cannot choose whether they are homosexual or heterosexual and we just need to treat them as people. This is what this bill is all about. It completes a process which started with the decriminalisation of homosexuality. I just wish the churches were leading it, as they did when campaigning for other disadvantaged groups.

Nicolas Bellord said...

I am afraid I just do not buy the idea that the Civil Partnership Act and the SSM bill have not come about because of pressure from the LGBT lobby to normalise sexually active homosexual relationships. Stonewall etc have been lobbying for this for years.

When you say that this follows on from the decriminalisation of such behaviour back in 1957 you are surely confirming that this legislation is about active homosexual behaviour. I of course agree with the decriminalisation as although I see such activity as wrong there is no reason to make it criminal.

As was pointed out in Parliament yesterday it was the schismatic Henry VIII who passed the Buggery Act, the Catholic Mary Tudor repealed it but the protestant Elizabeth I reintroduced it.

However when it comes to praising such behaviour and endorsing it I do not agree anymore than I agree with our divorce law facilitating adultery etc.

As to the nature of homosexuality and whether one can choose I disagree. I suspect there is mixture of nature and nurture causing these inclinations. Everyone suffers from disordered sexual urges towards the full range of sexual sins. We all have to choose though how to respond. It is often incredibly difficult especially if one has allowed oneself to fall into some kind of habitual behaviour.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

Of course the CPA and the SSM bill have not come about as a result of lobbying to normalise any kind of sexual behaviour. What a ridiculous idea. The state, quite rightly, has no view on such things. It is all about equality of treatment, and nothing whatsoever to equalise the way any group behaves.

I don't believe that anyone should either praise, or condemn anything that consenting adults do in private. It's none of our business. That you regard it as "wrong" says much more about where you are coming from than it does about homosexuality.

The idea that homosexuality can be chosen is something I have heard from a number of Christian sources and is one which I, and so far as am aware every objective scientific analysis, totally rejects. So far as I am concerned homosexuality is something you are born with. Some might suppress it, and remain confused and unhappy, but it is not a matter of choice. Therefore to treat such people in a different way is to continue the historical prejudices we are gradually learning to abandon.

Nicolas Bellord said...

I am afraid we will have to agree to differ at this point. Anyway this exchange has gone on long enough!

New Friend said...

Nicolas

On that at least, we agree.

Catrin said...

Hooray! At last.Daddy and I will be married!Two people.In love. Want a forever relationship.