Same-sex marriage bill imminent – SPUC’s warning to MPs

From John Smeaton’s blog:

eleventh-hour.jpg

Following indications that the Cameron government plans to launch its bill for same-sex marriage next week, SPUC has written to government MPs warning them against the move.

The letter slams the government’s railroading of its proposals as “dishonest”, “high-handed” and “shoddy”. SPUC points out that the family based on real (i.e heterosexual) marriage is the safest place for children both born and unborn. The letter ends by warning that at the next general election SPUC will highlight MPs’ voting records on same-sex marriage.

The full text of SPUC’s letter to MPs is below.

SPUC’s position paper on the same-sex marriage issue can be read at http://www.spuc.org.uk/documents/papers/ssm201201

Letter to government MPs regarding same-sex marriage, Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), 5 December 2012

“Dear [name of government MP],

I write regarding a story that the Government plans to launch its bill for same‐sex marriage next week.

If the story is correct, it is consistent with the thoroughly dishonest and dishonourable way the government and its allies have attacked real marriage. In the marriage consultation exercise earlier this year, Mr Cameron sought in a high‐handed manner to discuss only “how” to achieve his aims, and not to consider whether they have merit or public support. To hang his proposals on a non‐manifesto plan to “consider the case for changing the law” on civil partnerships is another shoddy manoeuvre.

Marriage is embedded in the fabric of society. Marriage is unquestionably the best setting for children to be conceived, born and raised and to receive their first education. The marriage‐based family is also (and critically for us who defend unborn children) the safest social context for new life.

Contributors to the consultation exercise drew attention to the evidence of the benefits of real marriage, the support for it, its ancient pre‐political heritage, its worldwide status, and the approach of mainstream religions. However, drawing attention to the enormity of his folly only seems to have made Mr Cameron more determined.

We will continue to point out the hypocrisy of asserting that “equal marriage” will not interfere with church weddings. Those planning the legislation know full well that churches which refuse to co‐operate will be denied civil recognition of their marriage rites or face worse persecution.

The recent by‐election results have proven disappointing for both Conservative and Lib‐Dem parties. This is not surprising, given the usual run of mid‐term contests. What was most notable was the strong showing by UKIP, which broadly supports real marriage. SPUC has never taken a party political line, but we do tell people where individual election candidates stand, and our activists have highlighted the position of UKIP candidates alongside others in these contests. We will continue to inform electors of candidates’ voting records and voting intentions on a wide range of issues in future elections.

I urge you to ask Mr Cameron to reconsider and to withdraw his plan.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Tully
General Secretary
Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC)
London

This entry was posted in Catholic Moral Teaching, Pro Life and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

86 Responses to Same-sex marriage bill imminent – SPUC’s warning to MPs

  1. toad says:

    .

    “Marriage is embedded in the fabric of society. Marriage is unquestionably the best setting for children to be conceived, born and raised and to receive their first education. The marriage‐based family is also (and critically for us who defend unborn children) the safest social context for new life.
    …Contributors to the consultation exercise drew attention to the evidence of the benefits of real marriage, the support for it, its ancient pre-political heritage, its worldwide status, and the approach of mainstream religions.”

    Toad has pointed out several hundred times that he doesn’t really care whether “gays” get “married” or not. It’s entirely their business – or should be. He just can’t see any convincing reason for excluding them from the delights of matrimony, if that is their wish.

    It will not adversly affect his life, nor that of his family, as far as he can see.

    And so, the somewhat inelegantly- acronymed SPUC‘s statement above is, he suggests, not open to dispute even from the most fervent “pro-gay” advocate.
    In fact, he supposes such a person, (let’s call him Fred,) could very well point to the above list and say, “Yes, and that is exactly why I want to marry Sid.”

    And, if any variety of church, mosque or synogogue – or any minister therein – doesn’t want to marry Fred and Sid – he, (or she no doubt) – ought to be entitled to say, “No, I won’t,” without fear of “persecution,” of any stripe.
    So, if no minister is willing to “knot” Fred and Sid, then Fred and Sid will not get knotted.

    Er, that’s it.

    Like

  2. toad says:

    .

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9729773/Gay-marriage-given-the-green-light-for-weddings-in-churches.html#disqus_thread

    Why must the light be “green”? What’s wrong with pink?
    Quote Of The Day: “David Cameron said: ‘I’m a massive supporter of marriage and I don’t want gay people to be excluded from a great institution.’ “
    But Dave – who wants to live in an institution?
    BOOM!
    BOOM!

    Aye don’t wish to know that – kindly leave the stage! Boom!

    Toad treats the The End of Civilised Life As We Have Come To Know And Love It, with appropriate decorum and gravity. Naturally.

    Like

  3. johnkonnor72 says:

    …as members of a rational society we owe it to each other to act according to the notion of what is good in relation to the natural law…any act that is contrary to the natural law would constitute an example of disunity of cause and result in a disruption of the moral order and hence promote discord and chaos…now gay sex is an aberration of the natural law…since the definition of a good act relies on how well a thing actualizes its potentiality through mode order and form.. i can say that a poor mode of being would result in a failure to actualize one’s potentiality…so the main purpose of marriage is union which aims at ensuring the human race has adequate progeny to persist into the the future ….a union which is based on the frustration of the procreative process is inherently sinful..a gay union is a subversion of the conjugal duties of marriage and so is a poor expression of a mode of being…it is a social poison and if we condone such unions then we commit sins of omission since owing to divine justice we have the responsibility to cleave to the good and shun the bad…that is my feeble take on the subject i am sure more erudite and learned people could elucidate the inherent contraindications of gay union and marriage much better than i ever could…but at least i stated my piece….

    Like

  4. toad says:

    .
    “…so the main purpose of marriage is union which aims at ensuring the human race has adequate progeny to persist into the future..”

    Let us examine a few things here, JK, bit by bit:
    “The main purpose of marriage is union..” You will get few, to none, gays disagreeing with you there, so we can move swiftly on.
    If we admit that “union” is the main purpose, we are also allowing that there are other purposes, into some of which “gays” might fit nicely, such as companionship, and taking turns cleaning up dog vomit.

    And it might be noticed that other creatures, who apparently don’t get married, still manage to produce adequate progeny to persist into the future. Rats, say, and cockroaches.
    Would fewer progeny actually be a bad thing, anyway?

    However, I don’t wholly disagree with your comment. It’s just that I’d like some other examples of “the natural law.” Is flying in aeroplanes, against it? Scuba diving? Driving a car? Blood transfusions? Turning water into wine? Raising the dead?

    We live in a less intolerant age in many respects these days. Not totally, to be sure, but generally.
    I see no need to either publicly condone or condemn activities we disagree with – simply ignore them, unless they can be demonstrated to be anti-social and/or dangerous.
    Gay marriage can be lumped along with rap music, Coca Cola, motor cars, and Mel Gibson movies. Some like them, some don’t.
    Takes all sorts. I reckon.

    Like

  5. kathleen says:

    We roared with laughter in my family when we heard David Cameron boom out that he was a ‘massive supporter of marriage’! It that were true Mr. Cameron, why would you be doing your best to wreck it?
    Because that – like it or not – is what this re-definition of marriage (to include two people of the same sex) is doing. Next we’ll be defining marriage to include threesomes, or foursomes, or marriage between members of the same family…… or goodness knows what!
    Marriage is one thing, and one thing only: a union between one man and one woman.

    Like

  6. toad says:

    .
    Well, “Dave” would no doubt point out that by increasing the potential number of folk eligible to “marry” – he was supporting “The Great Institution” massively. I suppose.

    There is usually more than one way of looking at anything. Or of skinning a cat.
    Including marriage. I suppose.
    But, to paraphrase Humpty ( he won’t mind – he’s a notorious bachelor) “Marriage means exactly what I want it to mean. No more, no less.”

    Same as marmalade, really.

    Like

  7. johnkonnor72 says:

    http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.htm……suggested crash course reading on aspects of the natural law…the natural law as it relates to humans is more particular than how it relates to animals since humans are rational and have free will…the natural law is nothing more than an edict imprinted on the essence of human beings which when executed through the virtues and the intellect and will…causes them to participate correctly with the eternal law of God…this enables human kind to achieve their proper end and become happy…one example is self preservation hence suicide is opposed to the natural law…gay union is a form of social suicide since it precludes the possibility of producing offspring….

    Like

  8. toad says:

    .

    “…gay union is a form of social suicide since it precludes the possibility of producing offspring…”

    Wouldn’t that apply equally well to celibacy, then, John?

    Like

  9. johnkonnor72 says:

    …Chastity …chastises concupiscence and so it is a virtue…chastity allows a person to become more perfect in the virtues and so increases their ability to abide by the natural law …providing a good example for all…it is true no offspring are produced but it cant be said that it is a social poison or rank it alongside the inherently sinful act of sodomy…as such a call to celibacy is a vocation that is reserved for the few according to the eternal law and these vocations provide a model for virtuous living when the prevelant social norms devolve into babylon revisited…some are called to married life some to the celibate life…but none are called through the eternal law to commit sins that cry to heaven …that would be a contradiction of God and not be possible..it would make God the author of sin….

    Like

  10. toad says:

    .
    “..it would make God the author of sin….”

    So sin was not conceived by God? So when God made man He didn’t know man would sin.
    But He knew everything, already. Man was the cause, sin the effect. But God knows what effect a cause will have beforehand. Because He’s God. We don’t know.
    Oh, the heck with it.

    Put it this way: If I was God, and could prevent my dogs from gravely sinning, I would.

    Or this way: If you, JK, were God and could create a world exactly as you wanted, would you include even one single being who contained the remotest potentiality of ending up eternally damned, as opposed to simply getting a thorough metaphysical kicking?

    You would? Oh, well.

    Like

  11. johnhenrycn says:

    “Revelation gives us neither the assurance that all will be saved, nor the certitude that any are condemned. What it does require of us is the “hope that all men be saved” rooted in a love of Christ that reaches even into the depths of Hell.”

    Hans Urs von Balthasar in his disturbing, yet exhilarating study, Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved: With A Short Discourse On Hell

    http://www.amazon.com/Dare-Hope-Saved-Short-Discourse/dp/0898702070#_

    Like

  12. johnkonnor72 says:

    …the way the rational beings function through the passive and active intellect…receiving phantasms through the senses and creating abstractions from the forms perceived then passing it on the cognition and understanding then passing on this information to the will to choose….without a free will there is no need for rationality …no need for humanity…so God’s creation would be frustrated and imperfect without …freedom to choose there can be no love only servitude …in fact through sin we are now able to achieve a greater place in eternity through Christ who has enabled us to rise up and become one with God in knowledge… in the garden God walked with us however in heaven we will see him face to face…and be one with him….so the way it is is the perfect way…because God is love since he is imperfectible in nature and so we can say he is perfect love and perfect love needs a lover God cannot simply love himself…that would be vanity and sinful…so he created us with the potential to love…without freedom we are incapable of expressing our affection since without choice there is no need for preference….

    Like

  13. johnhenrycn says:

    Johnkonnor72:
    I can’t decide whether you’re one of the greatest minds of the age, or full of ordure. Whichever, your prose style is impenetrable to me; but so is Aquinas.

    Like

  14. afmm says:

    Does CP&S have provisions for rating comments?

    Like

  15. johnhenrycn says:

    Does CP&S have provisions for rating comments?
    You talking to me, pal? 😉
    But seriously – no – it does not. We must criticize or applaud each individual comment personally, keeping in mind that cruelty is verboten. I am still learning that lesson.

    Like

  16. toad says:

    .
    Toadperson is very much in agreement with JH, regarding JK. But it must be admitted he clearly has a unique style of expression. Superior to Hegel, though.
    I’d give him at least 3.25 out of 15.
    (JK, that is, not Hegel.)

    Toad suggests cruelty is all right, as long as it’s funny.
    …But there’s the rub.

    Like

  17. toad says:

    .

    JK: By Ezekiel, out of e.e.cummings?

    More complimenary than cruel, surely?

    If you can’t eat you got to

    smoke and we aint got
    nothing to smoke:come on kid

    let’s go to sleep
    if you can’t smoke you got to

    Sing and we aint got

    nothing to sing;come on kid
    let’s go to sleep

    if you can’t sing you got to
    die and we aint got

    Nothing to die,come on kid

    let’s go to sleep
    if you can’t die you got to

    dream and we aint got
    nothing to dream(come on kid

    Let’s go to sleep)

    Like

  18. Brother Burrito says:

    For success, one should marry complementary opposites.

    If you marry eggs with eggs, they will inevitably need a good beating.

    Remember the old song:

    “Love and marriage…go together like a horse and carriage”.

    though as a child I used to think this lyric should have ended “…like bacon and cabbage”.

    Like

  19. toad says:

    .
    “If you marry eggs with eggs, they will inevitably need a good beating.”

    Declares Burrillito, revealing an unexpectedly sidistic side of his normally aimiable nature.
    But then we all relish our omlettes, don’t we?

    “If you go to see the woman, don’t forget your whip!” says Neitzsche. What can he mean? Probably just a misstranslation of ..“…don’t forget your whisk.”

    Sherry flip, anyone?

    Like

  20. toad says:

    .
    “Sidistic” Doh! Poor old Sid! Hasn’t got a sadistic bone in his head!

    Freudian “silp” no doubt.

    Toad Saints, 0 – WordPress Devils, 76.

    (Match abandoned due to more trouble, and impending Apocalypse, in Egypt.)

    Like

  21. srdc says:

    The arguments for gay marriage are arguments that highlight the failure of marriage itself. High divorce rates, single parenthood, rampant promiscuity, etc have led people to conclude that marriage is no longer about sex, or children etc.

    Like

  22. srdc says:

    Gay Marriage is a tough sell in countries where these changes have not taken place.

    Nigeria to Western nations: We’d sooner refuse aid than legalize same-sex “marriage”

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/nigeria-to-western-nations-wed-sooner-refuse-aid-than-legalize-same-sex-mar

    Like

  23. toad says:

    .

    “High divorce rates, single parenthood, rampant promiscuity, etc have led people to conclude that marriage is no longer about sex, or children etc.”

    Not about sex, Srdc? Then what do “people” conclude marriage is about? Surely in your book, “gays” think it’s about sex and nothing else? Otherwise, why are they so keen on it? As for the rest of “people” my guess is that , yes, they think it’s about sex (and children) but they also think – rightly or wrongly – that it isn’t always necessary any more. “Just a bit of paper,” I’ve heard it described as.
    I don’t personally agree, but it takes all sorts.

    You are looking down the wrong end of the telescope, I fear. Why should, for example, “rampant promiscuity” lead people to think that marriage is no longer about children? What is the link?

    And I’ve been reading recently people saying the same as you do about marriage, that it has lost all its status, dignity, or whatever – and that “gays” joining the club will help restore its former lustre and respectability. That it’s better anyone getting married than nobody.
    Matter of opinion, but there you are.

    As to Nigeria, it’s an absymal country, rotten to the core with corruption, and rapidly going Muslim. Hardly a role model for the West. Although..when you come to think of it…

    Like

  24. Jerry says:

    srdc, so apparently this bill will mean Public displays of affection between homosexuals would result in a ten-year jail sentence.

    The headline you posted says: We’d sooner refuse aid than legalize same-sex “marriage”

    You didn’t comment on this, but I presume you draw the same conclusion as the rest of us who have some interest in that part of the world. — The government of Nigeria is a disgrace, and has been for some time, this utterly venal and pathetic piece of legislation reminds us of that fact.

    May I ask to what end you cite the abject stupidity of the Nigerian government???

    Like

  25. Jerry says:

    I notice a link to another article at the bottom of that page srdc:
    Obama admin ‘blackmails’ developing countries into adopting ‘sexual anarchy’ –
    “Lifesite News” is new to me, — nice to see that the gutter press is still with us in the 21st century. What a revolting website.

    Like

  26. toad says:

    “Rep. Nkeiruka Onyejeocha said she hoped the vote would send a strong signal to Western nations that Nigeria’s morals and ethical values are not for sale.”
    …at any price. Well, actually any price under about seven dollars per “moral value.” To be paid under the counter. In a plain envelope, in cash, of course.
    And make sure nobody’s videoing it.

    But Seriously though..
    1: Toad thinks the prospect of refusing aid to Nigeria under any circumstances ought to be received with considerable equamity.
    2: Srdc should consider going there on vacation. She will go down a regular treat. Mutual admiration. Warm, friendly, straight people.

    Unsolicited Email received by Toad:
    Dear Sir (or Madam) I am a Nigerian Prince, at present unemployed. By good fortune I am in a position to offer you, unofficially of course, my country’s entire annual output of ethical and moral values for practically nothing. All you have to do is mail me a check made out, “Pay to bearer” for $100,000 dollars. These moral values will fetch several millions in in places like the U.K. and Saudi Arabia, where they have none of their own. We can then split the proceeds, and both retire to somewhere that is nice, i.e. not Nigeria.
    Yours faithfully, etc.

    .

    Like

  27. srdc says:

    Toad,

    Gay marriage is not going to solve someone else’s marriage problems. The divorcing of sex from marriage and pro-creation has made arguments for gay marriage plausible.

    Like

  28. srdc says:

    I am not in favour of jailing anybody, okay in any part of the world. I am just pointing out how the same people who yell, do not impose your values on me, want to impose theirs on the rest of the world.

    Like

  29. srdc says:

    Lifesite news reports news the mainstream media is either too biased or too afraid to report.
    According to you it’s okay to force Catholic, Evangelical and other religious schools in Canada, and Europe to teach gay sex- education whether they like it or not, and tell them not to offer their own views on this issue.

    It’s okay for the state to tell parents, they own their kids, so parents have no rights to teach their own ethics to their children?

    How is this different from the thugs in Nigeria? Pot, Kettle?

    Like

  30. toad says:

    Well Srdc, don’t Catholics want to impose their values on the rest of the world?
    I thought that was their job. Sinful not to?
    Assuming that to be so, how can we, in all conscience, stop others trying to do the same?

    Ket? Pottle?
    Holding up for aprobation, and as role models for Catholicism, those that you now accurately describe as “the thugs in Nigeria,” was not altogether a good idea in the first place.
    Suggests Toad.

    “Lifesite news reports news the mainstream media is either too biased or too afraid to report.”
    I think the word you are searching for here is, “·sensible.”

    .

    Like

  31. srdc says:

    “Well Srdc, don’t Catholics want to impose their values on the rest of the world?
    I thought that was their job. Sinful not to?
    Assuming that to be so, how can we, in all conscience, stop others trying to do the same?”

    Wrong Toad. Have you heard of natural law? There are philosophical roots to the current crisis, but that is a different argument.

    Some things are just wrong for everybody. Relativism sounds good in theory, but is dangerous in practise. If there are no fixed categories of right and wrong, then everybody makes up their own philosophy and the strongest, no the nicest one wins. It’s becomes more about popularity than right or wrong.

    Like

  32. toad says:

    “According to you it’s okay to force Catholic, Evangelical and other religious schools in Canada, and Europe to teach gay sex- education whether they like it or not, and tell them not to offer their own views on this issue.”

    Fie, Srdc!
    When has Toad ever suggested such a thing?
    Every school on the planet has every right to stuff every child’s head therein with whatever particular variety of nonsense the school thinks fit. And they do!

    That’s democracy! And education! It’s a wonderful world! Thinks Toad.
    (Who personally home schools his dogs.)

    Like

  33. toad says:

    “…Some things are just wrong for everybody.”
    Very well, Srdc. Some examples, please.

    Of course the French intellectuals are famous for saying, “Well it’s all right in practice, but the theory stinks.”
    With relativism in mind, not doubt.

    Like

  34. srdc says:

    “Very well, Srdc. Some examples, please.”

    Let’s look at the current one. There is no such thing as gay marriage, it’s does not exist. The sexes are not interchangeable. It’s a false assumption to claim that nobody is equal now, unless they are the same.

    Like

  35. toad says:

    Oh, Srdc. Toad knows despair.
    The entire point of all this – not only “gay marriage” – but everything – is that when you, or anyone else, state that: “Some things are just wrong for everybody “ it is then up to you to produce an example of that, when challenged.
    Just one would do.
    Something that EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD agrees is wrong.
    Just one ! Easy!

    Obviously gay marriage is wrong for you. Equally obviously, it’s not not wrong for many gays.
    So that just won’t do as an example of a thing that’s “just wrong for everybody.” Will it?
    Surely even you can see that?
    No. Obviously not.

    Why do I bother ?

    (Don’t bother answering that, JH.)

    Like

  36. kathleen says:

    There we go again: srdc makes an appropriate comparison to how, (in this case, Nigeria,) people with ethics and morals react indignantly to the abomination of being forced to legalise ‘gay’ marriage, and suddenly they are all ‘thugs‘! Don’t you realise, Jerry & Toad, that in a country with an enormous population, of which a large percentage suffers real poverty, these brave people are saying that they would prefer even greater hardship, rather than go against their consciences? I admire them!

    Yes, Nigeria has plenty of corruption, and seemingly unending problems, but that’s not the whole story. Organisations like ‘Aid to the Church in Need’ report great faith and enthusiasm among the Christian population, with many vocations to the priesthood and religious life. Certainly Christianity is growing and flourishing, and this in spite of a worsening and vicious persecution from ultra islamic factions. Are we (westerners) going to add more wood to the already raging fire?

    Like

  37. srdc says:

    Kathleen,

    But it is strange that a State which is so influenced by multiculturalism treats the views on this issue of every other human culture with contempt. (There was plenty of homosexuality in ancient Greece but it was never confused with marriage.) And strange that a State which has treated marriage with such contempt that its tax policies financially favour unmarried cohabitation should suddenly press vehemently for an extension of the right to marry.

    Like

  38. toad says:

    .
    What seems to have escaped your normally eagle eye, Kathleen, is that it was Srdc herself who first brought up “the thugs in Nigeria.” I merely agreed with her. Still do.
    What do you say to that?

    And of course it’s not “the whole story.” Nothing ever is.

    Now, Srdc – back to a few of those naughty old ….“things that are just wrong for everybody”

    Which I take to mean things that everybody in the world agrees are wrong?
    Name some please.

    Like

  39. srdc says:

    I think gay marriage should be wrong for everybody, because it does not exist. The fallout of this is going to be governments not recognizing any marriage.

    Like

  40. toad says:

    You, Sdrc – are fully entitled to think that gay marriage should be – indeed is – wrong for everybody. But other people, as you know, do not agree. Some of them are gay.
    That is why we have wonderfully varied “institutions” like CP&S, The House of Commons, and Nigeria.

    Toad is confident that “marriage” will survive – and, who knows – maybe even thrive.
    But, even if it doesn’t thrive, don’t worry – IT WILL NOT GO AWAY. Ever. Ever. Ever.
    And governments will always recognise it. Because government will always need the votes. Including the votes of gays.

    However, how can a non-existent thing (like gay marriage) be “wrong”? Are unicorns “wrong”?
    They are neither “wrong” nor “right,” I suggest.
    Then, there are people, not unlike yourself – externally at least, with a head, two arms and legs, etc., who actually say: “I think god should be wrong for everybody because he does not exist.”
    Incredible, isn’t it? But it’s true!
    According to Bentham, this is why the notion of “Natural Law” is preposterous. Because nobody can, or could, or will, ever agree on what constitutes it.

    Like

  41. kathleen says:

    Toad @ 01:54

    Well actually, this point did not escape K‘s ‘eagle eye’……. I just used that term because Srdc had used it to sum up what you and Jerry were saying about Nigeria, and it was just easier to repeat it instead of longer winded cuts and pastes. 🙂

    C.S. Lewis, in one of his books – sorry, I can’t remember which – gives a list of attitudes and actions that are wrong, and right, for all men everywhere, whatever their religion or culture. I remember reading this ages ago and finding it fascinating.

    Like

  42. toad says:

    .
    Of course Kathleen, we each have our little lists of rights and wrongs.
    Trouble is, they are very varigated.

    The only indisputable “sin,” Toad can think of is adultery.
    Murder, of course, but people have very different ideas about what constitutes that. Viz: Bin Laden.
    Same with lying. Ends that often end in ends and means.
    Bentham’s Utilitarianism, in fact. Of which one Toad is not.

    It’s probable that I, for one, would not agree with all the things on Lewis’s list.
    But, who knows? But even if I did, we can be sure someone else wouldn’t.
    I’ll try to find it.

    Like

  43. toad says:

    http://allaboutcslewis.com/2010/05/26/mere-christianity-1-right-and-wrong/

    I’ve been mooching about on the net and found the above. It doesn’t answer what Kathleen and I have been talking about, but it has a very interesting 40 minute podcast, or whatever, including some of Lewis in his own voice, and words.
    It’s well worth a listen. Although, I have to warn that I, as an agnostic, found it far more convincing as a denial of Christianity, which it is emphatically not intended to be, than as an affirmation.
    That is, it raises all the thorny questions, then goes and drops the ball.
    To mix a metaphor serendipitously.

    Other peoples’ opinions would be educational and instructive. Thinks Toad.

    Like

  44. srdc says:

    You are right that unicorns can’t be wrong. In the same way, gay marriage is not wrong. It’s impossible. It makes claims that some people are a different species of human, only in relation to sex. It confuses genetic pre-dispostion with determinism.

    C.S. Lewis held the views that we could refuse the whole moral order, but not create another one.

    Freedom presupposes objective values. If freedom is really good, it must be freedom from something really bad, thus assuming some objective good and bad. The advocate of freedom will almost always insist that freedom be granted to all, not just some, thus presupposing the real value of equality, or the Golden Rule.

    Like

  45. Jerry says:

    C.S. Lewis, in one of his books – sorry, I can’t remember which – gives a list of attitudes and actions that are wrong, and right, for all men everywhere, whatever their religion or culture.

    Or to be more accurate, it was a list of attitudes and actions that were believed to be universally wrong or right to one particular Anglo-Irish mid-twentieth Century Oxford Don.

    Like

  46. Jerry says:

    Freedom presupposes objective values

    Go tell Sartre

    Like

  47. toad says:

    If one truly wants to get the real sensation of being and nothingness, Gerry, try talking to Srdc about anything.

    “… In the same way, gay marriage is not wrong. It’s impossible.” Sigh. Sigh. Sigh.

    It is wrong to you, Srdcit may be wrong to Toad (it isn’t) but to millions of people it is not wrong. And, for them, you saying it’s wrong is of no consequence.
    And they are going to succeed, in their aim, it seems.

    And when you, Srdc, say to them, “It’s impossible, You’re not really married, “ they will make a rude noise with their lips, and laugh, and reply, “Go forth and multiply, Srdc!”…or words more or less to that effect.
    You’ll see. And there’s nothing you, or Toad, or Gerry, can do about it. Except laugh.

    And there are people, not Srdc, who believe that blasphemy is impossible. Takes all sorts.

    Like

  48. toad says:

    (Where Toad has written “wrong” above, feel free to substitute the word “impossible,” if you like, or even “rubbish,” or “gibberish.”)

    Like

  49. Jerry says:

    Toad, Jerry is in agreement with much of that, but upset by a single letter 😉

    Like

  50. toad says:

    .
    Many apologies, J.
    Lazy, careless, sloppy old Toad.
    …Whose horrid little green ears always prick up when he hears the word “impossible.”

    Gay marriage is “impossible.”
    Homosexuality not being regarded as a criminal offence is “impossible.”
    Womens’ sufferage is “impossible.”
    Equal rights for blacks in Mississippi is “impossible.”
    Travelling to Mars is “impossible.”
    Mel Gibson is “impossible.” (Oops, true!)

    Twenty years ago, standing in the middle of a field in Spain and holding a normal conversation with someone sitting in an office in Toledo, Ohio, would have been “impossible”
    A hundred years earlier, the idea would have been regarded as mere fantasy.
    A century or so before that, the idea would have been considered witchcraft and to even suggest it might well get you burned at the stake.

    Seems to Toad, that a passable definition of “impossible” is “something that hasn’t happened yet.”

    Like

  51. Jerry says:

    It seems to me that the issue is relatively simple. In terms of the traditional Christian understanding of the word “marriage”, same-sex marriage makes no sense. As Srdc has pointed out. In the post-Christian society that we live in it makes complete sense. For that reason it is surely not too disturbing that the franchise of civil marriage is being extended. All the Churches need to do is (as Joyful Papist has suggested) withdraw entirely from civil marriages. Done. How does the inevitable development of how we understand civil marriage effect the Catholic Church one iota?

    Like

  52. toad says:

    Nicely put, Jerry. Sounds a bit too sensible to be accepted, though.

    Which is a bit of of a shame. Jefferson said something to the effect of.. “If it does not break my leg, or pick my pocket, then what is it to me?”

    Like

  53. kathleen says:

    Keep on trying to redefine the meaning of ‘marriage’ Toad and Jerry, but you’ll never succeed…… although they do say that those who really want to believe something can, if they go on repeating the ‘lie’ to themselves, be auto-convinced of any fanciful or bizarre idea! 😉

    I wholly agree with Srdc (that same-sex marriage is an impossibility) – as do a vast percentage of the human race, many who are not Christian, or even religiously inclined.
    The other much smaller percentage who want their own ‘twisted’ way, come what may, will have to start rewriting a great deal of history, culture, law, etc.

    Even the (presumably objective) dictionary states:

    marriage
    noun
    the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

    Like

  54. toad says:

    .
    You misunderstand, I think, Kathleen, and Srdc.
    Toad (who cannot speak for anyone else) could not care a rat’s patootie whether “Gays·” get “married” or not: In fact, as long as they don’t do it in public and upset his dogs, he really doesn’t care what they get up to.
    Live, and let live is his motter.

    So, by all means, let’s agree to agree :Gay Marriage Is Impossible!. What it really is, is not marriage all all, but something else of the same name. Only different.

    Won’t stop “GAYS” doing it, though. The little scamps! They’re just impossible, aren’t they?
    We’d all better start taking teeth-gnashing avoidance lessons at the sight of them all on the telly, capering out of church, laughing, holding hands and kissing one another, and stuffing confetti down one another’s blouses, hadn’t we!

    (That’s enough Gay Marriage…. You hope.)

    Like

  55. Jerry says:

    Kathleen, I don’t suggest changing the Christian understanding of marriage. I do suggest recognising that the word “marriage” in western society has come to (or is coming to) mean “a legally recognised and committed union between two consenting adults”. Gender is crucial to Christian marriage, and increasingly irrelevant to how the term is used in western civil society.

    As to the history and tradition argument, (remember I’m not redefining Christian marriage), how about the voting franchise? In everyv western society, from Classical Greece, through the Roman Republic, and onwards for two thousand years up to the turn of last century, voting was exclusively for men. But we don’t see that as a reason to deny women the vote do we?

    I think conservatives need to understand that the word “marriage” is used to express different concepts by the Catholic Church and civil society.

    Like

  56. srdc says:

    Jerry,

    Voting is a false comparison, to change the most fundamental fabric of civilization. The dynamic pair-bonding of men and women, to produce and raise a family, that contributes to future generations.

    The church does not marry anybody. Marriage is conferred by the couple on each other. The church simply serves as a witness. In fact before the council of Trent, one did not even need a priest to get married. This is why the marriage of hetreosexuals who are not Christian are accepted by the church. The blessing simply adds supernatural grace to natural one.

    Marriage is a natural institution. The matter of the sacraments is taken from the natural world. The church might use water in baptism, but it cannot manufacture water itself.

    To answer your question, how will this affect the church. Catholic hospitals will have to provide same-sex spousal benefits to a marriage they do not consider to be marriage.

    We are going to see years of litigation on this issue.

    Even the cultures that accepted homosexuality, did not confuse it with marriage. They did not lobby to enshrine it in globally.

    There is an attempt to write new values, not based on law or ethic, but on some emotional concept of hurt.

    Someone is not responsible for another’s mental state. The human race is afflicted by a number of things in varying degrees, this is not special or unique, it’s life. Forced acceptance or approval is not going to resolve internal struggles.

    Like

  57. srdc says:

    Kathleen,

    People assume the church will change it’s views on this subject. It only could if it was proven that pre-disposed inclinations (what we experience) always leads to pre-determined actions (what we do). Homosexuality might be genetically pre-disposed, but there is no evidence to prove that it always leads to pre-determined actions. Behaviour is still a choice. Some argue that just let people do what makes them happy. Fine, but there is also a move to seek forced approval and label those who disagree as bigots or just hateful.

    Like

  58. toad says:

    “Marriage is a natural institution.”
    Toad doubts that. There were probably as many as 45,00o years, minimum, more likely nearer 145,000, of human beings, very similar in intelligence to us, capable of amazing works of art, who probably never considered getting married.

    “The matter of the sacraments is taken from the natural world.”
    Where else could it possibly be taken from?

    “The church might use water in baptism, but it cannot manufacture water itself.”
    If it could, what would be the point? We’re not that short of water yet.
    Manufacture water? Why? You might as well say, “The church might use granite for building ugly churches, but it cannot manufacture granite itself.” Well, it probably could. But why?

    Toad might also ask what the point of Srdc’s last sentence, here above, was.

    But anyone’s guess is as good as his.

    Like

  59. srdc says:

    Marriage laws were created to affirm the pair-bonding of men and women that already existed.

    In this case you would be going against virtually every culture/society in human history. I know there were different kinds of marriages, but they were never made the law of the land or enshrined globally.

    You told me that the UN”s sexual rights movement was leftist lunacy. How far behind are we really given that the same UK govt that financially supported unmarried co-habitation for years, is suddenly so concerned about the right to marry, because marriage is good for everybody?

    Like

  60. srdc says:

    Jerry,

    I am in partial agreement with Joyful about the church pulling out of the marriage business, and if defiant priests bless these same-sex unions as some have, then this will become a reality.

    Like

  61. toad says:

    “…because marriage is good for everybody…”

    Where on earth did you get that perposterous idea, Srdc? Is it good for Pope Benedict, for example? Was it good for St John of the Cross? Mel Gibson?
    Marriage is good for some people, some of the time.
    And too many people rush into it too soon, and too quickly.
    No doubt some gays will do the same.
    And there will be tears before bedtime.

    Like

  62. Jerry says:

    Voting is a false comparison

    It’s not so much a false as it is a limited comparison. My point was that “tradition”, “it has always been thus”, has no particular status as an argument. The fact that we broke with tradition by extending the voting franchise, and were right to do so, simply illustrates the fact that something being the norm throughout human history has no bearing on whether it is good or not. We assess institutions according to their merits, not their age. — So I certainly wasn’t making a false equivalence between marriage and voting. And frankly Srdc, it’s pretty obvious that I wasn’t.

    Like

  63. Jerry says:

    Marriage laws were created to affirm the pair-bonding of men and women that already existed.

    The whole point of Christian marriage is that it’s a higher calling Srdc. It’s hard work and takes moral fortitude. Christian marriage isn’t “natural” anymore than sainthood is. It’s better than natural.

    Christian marriage is also rather recent. Marriage laws have more typically been framed with the expectation of serial monogamy, as was the case in the Roman world into which Christianity was born.
    Christian marriage isn’t a “natural institution”, that’s a mindless catchphrase. The point of it is that it’s better than natural.

    Like

  64. srdc says:

    I agree that Christian marriage is better than natural, but marriage is a lot more than just some tradition. I have heard this even from non-Christians. The only reason why people are not satisfied with civil unions and still fight for marriage, shows that it does carry significance.

    You are not changing my mind, on this issue. If everything is marriage, nothing will be marriage.

    Like

  65. srdc says:

    This is merely the reason espoused by Cameron and others.

    Like

  66. toad says:

    “If everything is marriage, nothing will be marriage.”

    Now you’re talking, Srdc!
    And if everyone was Catholic, nobody would be Catholic.
    And, if everyone was dopey, nobody would be dopey.

    By Jove, she’s got it, Pickering – I think she’s got it!
    I could have bogged all night… I could have blogged all night!

    And if anyone tries to change Srdc’s mind, it will be over Toad’s dead body.
    Steady at thethere! Form an orderly line!

    Like

  67. johnhenrycn says:

    …”if everyone was dopey, nobody would be dopey.”

    Toad, the truth you express so eloquently is that the end result of the dumbing down of identities, in our efforts to be ever so inclusive, is that identity loses all meaning. Martha Stewart might call that “a good thing”. I don’t.

    Like

  68. kathleen says:

    Srdc @ 20:13 yesterday

    That’s a very perceptive comment….. behaviour certainly is a “choice”. Just because one has inclinations that are inappropriate, or sinful, does not automatically follow that they have to be acted on! Or that one must rewrite the whole law of the land to fulfill these whims.

    Toad states: “Live, and let live is his motter

    Well, yes Toad, we could all say that….. but in practice that doesn’t always work out quite that way! Sometimes other people’s way of living the way they fancy, indirectly does not let others live the way they would like to. I’m sure you yourself can think of plenty of examples, but as you always ask for them, here’s one:
    Toad likes to retire early (as you told us when giving us a general idea of your day at Moratinos). What if you had some noisy neighbours who like to play loud rock music till late at night, keeping Toad away from his beauty sleep? Both living the way you/they want, but not letting the other live the way you/they want. (BTW, a friend told me that, by law, one is allowed to make as much noise as you like in Spain… up till midnight! Do you know if that’s true?)

    JH, ‘Well said’ to your last comment! 🙂

    Like

  69. toad says:

    Well, Kathleen, what would be your answer to Toad’s problem about his neighbours?
    What should he do? What could he do?
    Don’t know about the noise law. Could be as your friend said.

    “Or that one must rewrite the whole law of the land to fulfill these whims…”
    …Is this on the cards, then?

    “…the end result of the dumbing down of identities, in our efforts to be ever so inclusive, is that identity loses all meaning.”
    Don’t see much danger of that, on CP&S, at least, JH,
    As to the rabble, well, there you are. We must cultivate our own gardens.
    (Who is Martha Stewart? Is she the TV woman to went to jail for fraud?)

    Like

  70. Gregory Benedict says:

    1.I would suggest that Kant’s categorical imperative may have relevance to the debate.
    2. As far as I can understand, the pressure for same-sex marriage is a Trojan horse. Once achieved, same-sex marriage will be deemed to have the equivalence of heterosexual marriage. Woe betide the schoolmaster who presumes to advocate an ideal of heterosexual marriage. In discriminating in favour of that he will be judged guilty of discriminating against same-sex marriage.
    3. As one advocate of same-sex marriage said to me: if you comment on the morality of homosexual marriage you will be guilty of a hate crime. You will be punished.

    Like

  71. toad says:

    I do see what you are getting at, Kathleen. But my point is that, as far as I can see, a million “gay marriages” a year won’t make a red cent’s worth of difference to me and mine.

    If it does, or looks like doing so, I might feel the need to get all steamed up about it.
    Don’t know what I’d actually do, though.
    Maybe throw a hissy fit.
    …Or write to Dave Satan’s Disciple Cameron in very cross terms!

    Like

  72. johnhenrycn says:

    “…a million “gay marriages” a year won’t make a red cent’s worth of difference to me and mine.”

    …quoth the man whose favourite saying is – “I’m all right, Jack”.

    Very sad.

    Like

  73. srdc says:

    Kathleen is trying to say that we can choose fire and water, life and death, but we cannot chose it at the same time. It takes the infinite diversity of creation and reduces it to bland sameness, where nobody is equal, unless they are the same, men and women, life and death, fire and water etc.

    It’s like St. Anthony of the Desert said, “One day the world will go mad, they will see that you are not mad, and throw stones at you because you are not mad.”

    Like

  74. srdc says:

    Gregory,

    The argument that if you do not want a gay marriage, do not have one, confuses worship with conscience. A freelance photographer would not be able to refuse a gay wedding, a Catholic hospital would not be able to refuse to provide same-sex spousal benefits.

    A writer who specializes in fiction cannot be forced to take on a contract on something else, just because it’s legal.

    Like

  75. toad says:

    “The argument that if you do not want a gay marriage, do not have one, confuses worship with conscience.”
    No it doesn’t. It’s just sensible. Nobody can confuse worship with conscience. Except Srdc of course. Worship is someting we do, conscience is something we have. You can’t say, “I’m off to conscience now.”

    “A freelance photographer would not be able to refuse a gay wedding,”
    Yes they would. Freelance photographers can do what they like.
    But they’ll do practically anything for money. Naturally.

    “A writer who specializes in fiction cannot be forced to take on a contract on something else, just because it’s legal.”
    Of course they can’t, and the same applies to the freelance smudger.

    Like

  76. srdc says:

    Sadly, we have seen lawsuits against both photographers and others for refusing.

    Like

  77. toad says:

    Show me a lawsuit over a freelance photographer being sued for refusing an assignment, Srdc, and I will gladly eat my hat.
    If a freelance photographer refuses an assignment, we don’t waste time and money sueing him, or her, we just get another one that will do it.

    Like

  78. kathleen says:

    Have you eaten your hat yet Toad? 😉

    Srdc: “It’s like St. Anthony of the Desert said, “One day the world will go mad, they will see that you are not mad, and throw stones at you because you are not mad.””

    Yes Srdc, that’s the way things are going in our western countries right now!

    Like

  79. toad says:

    Well, Kathleen, and Srdc, Toad is in the process of fashioning a small but recognisable hat out of corn tortillas, and will eat it for supper, stuffed with black beans, red peppers and sweetcorn in salsa.
    Which is to say that he is genuinely surprised and shocked by the vicious imbecility of the situation above.
    He’s very insistent on people being able, within the law, to do exactly what they like – without having to worry about what others do, or think – just as long as they don’t harm other people in the process
    And that cuts both ways. And includes refusing any work that they don’t want, as well being allowed to “marry” whom they please.
    So, he agrees that this case is beyond absurd.
    A very well-argued piece by George Will, he thinks. All bullying is bad.

    However, when Toad was young, it was commonplace to see advertisments for apartments in London which stated, “No coloured, no Irish.” Where does one draw the line these days?

    Like

  80. srdc says:

    Toad,

    As I have pointed out there is an unmistakable attempt to create new values, not based on fact or ethic, but on some emotional definition of hurt.

    I stand in opposition to the legnths to which they will go to damage the lives of people whose only fault is to hold a differeing opinion, in attempt to extort agreement or to remove others completely from the life to which even their opponets are entitled.

    I believe heterosexuality is the biological and statistical norm for the human race. That has nothing to do with whether there is a God, or whether God is offended by homosexuality. Without heterosexuality, there would be no sexuality at all, and therefore no homosexuality.

    Like

  81. toad says:

    .
    Having just finished eating his hat, (very spicey, the band was) Toad has been brooding on Srdc’s remarkable story.
    Supposing, if instead of agreeing their objection was religious, the photographer had truthfully said;

    “No, thanks very much. The idea of wasting an entire afternoon of my life taking pictures at what you revoltingly describe as a ‘commitment ceremony,’ curdles the blood. And I can only imagine the sort of dingbats and half-wits that would willingly assemble for a fiasco of that nature.
    So, in short, again, No. I’d sooner spend my time watching television, while playing handball with my own ordure.”

    Would the smudger still be sued? Surely not?

    “I believe heterosexuality is the biological and statistical norm for the human race.” I agree, Srdc, and so is utter stupidity. As we see above. For both homos and hetros.

    Like

  82. srdc says:

    Stupidity is a condition of the psyche which is under the control of the individual. Biology is different.

    Like

  83. toad says:

    You don’t think a great many people are biologically stupid?
    We’ll just have to agree to differ on that.
    Toad happens to think the entire population of the world is biologically insane.
    Including himself.

    Like

  84. srdc says:

    “Toad happens to think the entire population of the world is biologically insane.
    Including himself.”

    Christianity calls this sin.

    Like

  85. toad says:

    Christianity has got that one right, in Toad’s opinion.
    Sin, Insanity, it’s all the same.

    So, Original Sin is, in reality, simply Original Insanity.

    But I’d sooner not wade through all that again.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s