Tue 2nd Sep 2014 | Last updated: Tue 2nd Sep 2014 at 11:40am

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Who cares about the consequences of gay marriage?

The problem with same-sex marriage legislation is that it wishes to bring into reality something that cannot exist

By on Monday, 5 March 2012

Who cares about the consequences of gay marriage?

People often ask the sort of question that goes like this: “Why don’t the bishops speak out about X?” where X is the great topic of the day. Well, they often do (not everyone listens) and they have certainly done so about the question of the proposed legalisation of homosexual marriage. Cardinal Keith O’Brien has spoken, and if you have not yet read what he has said, you can read it here.

Cardinal O’Brien is the senior Catholic in Great Britain, so you cannot get a more authoritative statement than this.

What struck me about the Cardinal’s article is the way he homes in on the philosophical underpinning of the proposed change to the law. He calls it an attempt to “redefine reality”, and so it is. Marriage as currently understood was not invented by any government, but precedes the invention of government; it is surely the oldest human institution there is; now a government, ours, is proposing to change the meaning of marriage. The government seems to believe that it has the power to redefine marriage – but how can it?

What this opens up, or rather should open up, for the present age is not really interested in metaphysical matters, is the question of the relationship between the human will and the world we live in. Certain things lie beyond our powers. I may not wish to die, I may deny that death exists, I may call it something else, but I will surely die. Death is a reality that no human decree can stay; so is old age; so are the basic laws of economics, or the laws of physics. No one, not even parliament, can decree that up shall henceforth be down, and down up.

A parliament could legislate that we should all drive on the left hand side, or the right hand side, as appropriate. Some countries have changed from one side to the other: but what side of the road you drive on is purely a matter of convention, human convention. Is what marriage is also purely conventional, in other words, whatever we decide it shall be? Our parliamentarians seem to think so, but on this matter they surely cannot be right. Even after any such proposed legislation becomes law, reality will be the same, nothing will have changed.

Natural law precedes human positive law, as some would put it. Human positive law cannot change natural law.

Incidentally, I am not particularly interested in the possible effects such legislation might have. My objections to such legislation are not consequentialist, but rather essentialist. It is not that I think that such legislation will have bad effects, though it may well do (who can predict the future?), it is rather that I think that such legislation wishes to bring into reality something that cannot of its nature exist.

One last point: Cardinal O’Brien’s article has aroused a predictable reaction. He wants to keep the status quo, as do I. He is accused by many commentators of being motivated by hatred. I see no evidence for this. As for myself, I do not hate anyone.

  • Honeybadger

    Oh, but you have given a reply, plankton!

    And what a reply you gave!

    A classic!

    You were unable to give a reasonable, civil answer to my statements because. they. are.based. on. TRUTH!!!

    And if the truth is bitter and the truth smarts, your reply and invalidation of my character in your last post is just what I expected!

    Actually, it doesn’t matter whether I expressed myself in the manner of some Lady Muck who cocks her little finger in the air when handling the Crown Derby tea cup full of Fortnum & Mason’s finest Assam … or in the manner of a fish seller from Fleetwood – you would not answer me any different.

    And that says more about YOU than me.

  • Honeybadger

    Scapulars, miraculous medals, crosses and crucifixes, relics and holy water are SACRAMENTALS!!!!

    The difference between blessed objects like those you mentioned and superstitious charms (lucky rabbit’s foot, lucky coin, lucky brass monkey) are POLES apart!

    If you don’t know the difference between the two, let me educate you… though, somehow, I feel it will be like talking to a stuffed fish in a glass but here goes…

    One question: Would you consider the pictures in your wallet, on your wall, on your keyring, in a locket, to be supersticious lucky charms?

    No.

    If a loved one belonging to you passed away recently, and you came across something in their boxes or chest of drawers that belonged to them which was special, wouldn’t you be reminded of them? Wouldn’t you shed a tear or feel a lump in your throat?

    Think about it.

    Next question: Would you consider pictures of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, His Excellency President Michael D Higgins, George Washington or HM Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands etc. to be idolatrous?

    Medals of saints date back to the early Church as reminders of those saints who gave their lives for Christ.

    Just as pictures of heads of state on coins, stamps, on the walls of public buildings etc. etc. remind you who is the Head of State in their respective countries, they remind you of the country’s history and heritage, too.

    Reminders, dear heart! Reminders!

    The Scapular and the Miraculous Medal were designed by Our Blessed Lady as reminders of the Love of God through Jesus Christ and her maternal love.

    Crosses and crucifixes are reminders to us that Christ died for us.

    The Holy Rosary is a practical reminder of the life of Our Lady and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ based on the Gospels.

    Satan HATES Our Lady, which is why the Holy Rosary, the Miraculous Medal and the Crucifix, for example, are very powerful against the devil.

    Just like insect repellant is effective against dangerous insects and products like AVG and McAffee is effective against malware on your computer, Holy Water is effective against evil because it is a SACRAMENTAL of the Church.

    When Saint Bernadette first saw ‘the lady’ at the grotto in Lourdes, she cast holy water at the niche to ensure that it wasn’t the devil. Sure enough, ‘the lady’ bowed her head at the holy water and didn’t flinch, flail or turn on her.

    Holy Water is used in blessings and exorcism, as well as the crucifix.

    Lourdes water is not holy water as I described above. It is special water because Saint Bernadette obeyed Our Lady when she told her to dig, drink of the spring and wash there.

    After several scientific tests, the water is spring water… but with a plus, in that it has aided cures for many people.

    So, what is the difference between someone who keeps a locket with a generous clip of someone’s hair enclosed behind protective glass … and people who attend the visitation of first class relics belonging to a saint who has lived, breathed and toiled their whole life on Earth for the love of Christ before they died?

    None whatsoever.

    SACRAMENTALS are emphatically NOT good luck charms nor should they be regarded as such.

    Besides, the minute priests blesses SACRAMENTALS (i.e. medals, rosaries, pictures, chaplets, crosses/crucifixes, holy water etc.) the prayers of the entire Roman Catholic Church are with the SACRAMENTALS!!!

    Priests would emphatically NOT do the same for a rabbit’s foot or a lucky brass monkey because they are charms!

  • Honeybadger

    Sharia Law is not the same as Canon Law… no-one in the Roman Catholic Church, for example, have ever been stoned to death, beheaded in public or had their hands chopped off for disobeying Canon Law – unless you know different, which I very much doubt!

    The Roman Catholic Church has Canon Lawyers and Canon Law counts for a lot on many, many issues … for example, the annulment of marriages, the chastisement of errant priests and religious etc. etc.

    I don’t find Canon Law a mystery at all.

  • Honeybadger

    I cannot see gay couples asking the priests in the RC Church to marry them…

    … unless the couple want to do this very thing to stir up trouble and no other reason!

  • Honeybadger

    I dread to think.

    What a monster the Mother of Parliaments has created… and they still haven’t learned any lessons with this oxymoron called same-sex marriage.

    I can envisage people marrying their gerbils and motorbikes after this!

  • Honeybadger

    Oh, please, please, for the love of God, give it a rest, Paul!

    It ain’t gonna happen no more than the birch tree in my back garden will grow £50 pound notes.

  • Honeybadger

    ‘Homosexuality, like all sexuality, is a grace.’

    Have you gone stark, raving mad? Have your senses packed their bags and gone off somewhere… ?

    I notice you have not attributed that quote to anyone, so I guess you made it up.

    It sure didn’t come from any prominent Roman Catholic worth his or her salt!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

    This is the “finality” argument about sexual activity, most fully explicated these days, I think, by John Finnis.

    Let me argue first that it cannot be legitimately asserted that the Church has always and everywhere taught that marriage is a pre-requisite for any sexual activity. 

    Although the early Church was keen on purity issues, it would have been impossible for it to insist that all sexually active members be legally married [there were no Church marriages for hundreds of years as all acknowledge]. This is because marriage in Roman society was restricted to those who had the right of “conubium” – that is free Roman citizens. Marriage was understood as a contract, but contracts could not be made by many – including slaves.

    Thus many Gentile converts especially in Rome, [Jews, and residents of some cities could presumably make use of local marriage customs] would have been unable to contract marriage. While slave relationships did have some recognition as conterbinium, a huge array of couples simply had no legal way of being “married”. But there is no evidence that they were precluded from sexual partnerships. 

    Another interesting variant was in Syria. There the extreme ascetic form of Christianity practiced apparently precluded all but celibates from being baptized until their deathbeds. Thus, apparently, no Syrian Christians were united by any Church ceremony. Certainly as non-baptized “adherents” they would not have been able to contract “sacramental marriages”.

    Secondly

    point 1. John Finnis, along with Germain Grisez, have been most responsible for attempting to rehabilitate Natural law ethics out of its Catholic seminary ghetto [Although Grisez has not helped his cause in the area of homosexuality by referring to gays as "sodomites" thoughout his magnus opus.

    I want to leave aside serious questions as to whether this rehabilitation has succeeded. [Finnis/Grisez try to remove natural law from a specific religious context - but there is serious doubt {see Russell Hittenger on "The New Natural Law Theory"} as to whether they succeed in doing this], and to accept for the sake of argument that Natural Law can be sustained as a system of Ethical “practical reasoning”.

    Finnis, who has written on this precise issue, claims that homosexuality is always a frustrated attempt [he is willing to accept, as is Grisez, that fore whatever reasons there are in fact people with a homosexual orientation] to achieve “finality”.

    This idea of “finality”, I suppose goes back through Aristotle to Plato. Human beings it argues are limited by their temporality and temporariness. Their striving towards eternity and perfection gives rise to eros which seeks “finality” by the procreation of children. Plato of course, famously, sees the procreation of eternal goods by homosexual lovers as the best instantiation of such eros, but later writers, less convinced perhaps of the ontological reality of virtues, have used this argument from finality to legitimate heterosexual sexuality, and marriage, and delegitimate homosexual activity. Later Christian writers, such as Clement of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo, who were concerned to assert the goodness of matter against the gnostics, but suspicious of passion, like the Stoics and Epicureans, furthered this basically Platonic justification of eros by insisting that sex was legitimate ONLY when it tended to procreation of children.

    Finnis’ contribution to all this has been to tie in the idea of complementarity and the insistence by the Second Vatican Council on the “unitive” nature of marriage. Finnis claims that only by putting a penis in a vagina can “true” physical union take place. In other words, to become, in Jesus’ words, “one flesh”, only “penis in vagina” counts.

    But, even if we grant most of Finnis’ natural law argumentation, it is not at all clear why “penis in vagina” is so special. There is no literal fusion of flesh, nor, by natural design apparently, are the vast majority of heterosexual acts open to “egg meeting sperm” [Women are fertile only a few days a month, but open to sex all the time; and no one suggests that known sterile, through age or other reason, couples need refrain from sex]. If Finnis were to argue that couples should use Natural Family Planning methods to ensure female fertility before all sexual acts, he would have a stronger but not conclusive point. But he does not and cannot argue such a position.

    Again, literally, when a sperm and egg fuse, it is not a man and women who are united as “one flesh”, but a new genetic entity which is created [with its own rights according to Catholic teaching!]

    So what is the nature of “one flesh”. Since it has no literal meaning as a phrase, it must be a metaphor. And the reference is not to any specific sexual act, but to the Genesis account of God’s creation of Co-Humanity.

    Such Biblical rumblings have no real place in pure natural law reasoning, and so Finnis is left, ultimately with the claim that his prejudice that only “penis in vagina” is “real sex”. As far as I can see he does not even really try to defend the point. But his argument falls on it.

    point 2. Nature, presumably, includes women. And so natural law argumentation, which acknowledges that it draws from human experience, to establish its precepts, or at least knowledge of its precepts, cannot exclude women’s experience. Without essentializing two much, it seems fair to argue that men and women have very different relationships to their bodies and to nature. For a man, his body is discontinuous, and different, from both his mother’s and his children, but for a women continuity is more visceral [literally.]

    I find the views of one woman thinker – Audre Lorde important here. Lorde provides an explanation of the place of the erotic which eschews the continuity anxieties of male writers.

    Lorde was not a theologian, more a poet of the Lesbian and gay community. But she did have a Catholic girlhood and contributed an essay of some importance to considerations of all aspects of sexuality. In 1983 she published “Uses of the Erotic: The erotic as power”, in Sister outsider: essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde, (Trumansburg NY; Crossing Pint, 1984) [Much of the discussion here relies on a paper by Ruth Ginzburg, "Audre Lorde's (Nonessentialist) Lesbian Eros" in Claudia Card, ed.,Adventures in Lesbian Philosophy, (Bloomington IN: University of Indian Press, 1994), 81 ff]

    Lorde identifies the erotic as “a considered source of power and information within our lives” that “rises from our deepest and non-rational knowledge”. It provides “the power which comes from sharing deeply any pursuit with another person” as well as “the open and fearless underlining of one’s capacity for joy”. Rather than making the erotic a claim to pleasure, Lorde is trying to answer the question “why is the erotic a good thing” can comes up with the answer that “the sharing of joy, whether physical, emotional, psychic or intellectual, forms a bridge between the sharers which can be the basis for understanding much of what is not shared between them, and lessens the threat of their difference”.

    This is a political and moral conclusion of some importance.

    What Lorde succeeds in doing is explaining why the erotic is virtue without teleological concerns. She does not require procreation to make eros virtuous, the strategy which had been central to its defense since Plato. Ginzburg at least, claims this is a gynocentric and Lesbian insight into eros. The implications for evaluation of homosexual relationships are immense [and not pursued by Ginzburg]. The entire tradition which has condemned homosexuality as “lacking finality” is based on a justification of eros which required finality.

    Lorde’s contribution then, consists in enabling as yet undone reconsiderations of both the nature of the erotic and the moral evaluation of the erotic. Repeatedly commentators on the topic see the inability of Lesbian and Gay marriages to produce children as, at best, a defect. But when we see the erotic as virtuous because of its ability to share joy and bridge isolation immediately , then the teleological framework totters.

  • David Devinish

    Your haranguing tirade reminds me of the book and film “The Singer Not the Song” by Audrey Erskine Lindop . You preach a fervent outburst of invective and sing out the praises of the Lord, but the song you sing is shallow, hollow and worthless. The priests splashing holy water and reciting unintelligible mantra’s are anachronistic and meaningless. There is more logic and reason in “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” than all the religious tirades ever preached because sane, rational people do not accept the concept of everlasting life (Heaven and Hell) and do not accept the adoration of a Deity (God) and all the piffle that goes with it. The song is out of key and tuneless.

  • Mark Castilano

    Let the church protest as much as it wishes about modernity and secularism, but the simple truth is “modernity and secularism” are with us whether we like it or not. Very soon there will be no such thing as ‘same sex marriage’; there will be a new legal definition of the meaning of marriage that will be open to anyone wishing to be married. It will be the law that all those performing weddings anywhere, will have to comply with the rule of law. For a short time there will be religious exemptions, just to take the heat out of the situation (cooling off period) but like everything else the exemptions will soon disappear and if religious organisations don’t like it, that will be just too bad.

  • Abdulla Hakim

    The Catholic Church is an innocent victim that became caught up in something not of it’s own making, because it was Muslims (in the main) who misused the laws of marriage. For some Muslim sects within Islam it is still permissible within ‘Sharia Law’ to have more than one wife, although this practice is illegal within The EC, The UK and US. Marriage has been seriously abused in the UK and EC, mainly by greedy, unscrupulous Muslims for cultural and commercial reasons. The Catholic Church leaders in The Vatican know very well same the sex marriage law has a secondary purpose, and that is to ‘reel in’ and control clerics who have had little regard for the sacredness and holiness of marriage or for the law of the state.For this reason, the Christian Churches, Mosques, and Hindu and other faiths will not be exempted from the law. Some irascible contributors to this site are using ‘Soap Box’ tactics to shout down the government and anyone else who disagrees with them, and all this does is expose just how weak the Catholic Church’s argument about the pending change in the law.  The arguments presented by Cardinal O’Brien and Archbishop’s Nichols and Smith were most sincere but they have not managed to convince the majority of people.

  • David Devinish

    How could my history lecturer have had the impertinence to teach me about the mass murder committed by Catholics during the Crusades, Inquisition, Bloody Mary, Mary Queen of Scots, the slaughter of the Huguenots, and many, many more. Mind you he was only a professor of history in Trinity College Dublin. And what would he know. You sound to be much more informed, with God on your side.

  • Jane Brady

    They might wish to get married because they love one another, and they might wish to receive the sacrament of matrimony in the house God. And who are you to say that they cannot?

  • Charles Martel

    It’s not a grace. God may, however, give grace to those afflicted with it in order to help them handle it.

  • JimH

    It’s hysterical seeing all you fossils getting all worked up. Most people couldn’t give a toss about your archaic, regressive way of thinking. That your ‘church’ seems to function as an organised ring of catamites seems not to bother you. Anyway, it’s too late for the likes of you lot! Gay marriage – and that’s what it is in the Netherlands, Scandinavia, South Africa, Canada, Spain, Portugal etc – is here to stay, and the UK is about to join the ranks of the modern, civilised world. Oh, and it is truly divine justice that that the latest of your catamites has been sent away for 22 odd years! lol :-)

  • Anonymous

    So basically you reject the teleological where morality is concerned. I see where you’re coming from, and I’m not sure where to start. You obviously know that orthodox Catholic doctrine affirms teleology.

    To point 1: is it an accident that sexual intercourse sometimes leads to conception? That seems to be what you are saying. I think the point of the Aristotelian position is that the drives we have are for the sake of something. Just because the female cannot always conceive, that doesn’t destroy the fact that her reproductive system is for the sake of making babies.

    To point 2: yes men and women have different experience of sexuality. But does this really destroy teleology?
     
    I’m not familiar with this Ginzberg poet type, but her argument doesn’t defeat the teleological view of virtue, as you say it does. She has an opinion. I suggest that her opinion is nebulous. Even she implies that virtue is for the sake of something.

    I liked this description: “why is the erotic a good thing” comes up with the answer that “the
    sharing of joy, whether physical, emotional, psychic or intellectual,
    forms a bridge between the sharers which can be the basis for
    understanding much of what is not shared between them, and lessens the
    threat of their difference.” That’s an awesome description of the erotic.  Because we are not just animals, our experience of sexuality is very complex. We are erotic beings so to speak. But we are more than simply erotic beings. That is why I think this description is incomplete. Why is the erotic ultimately a good thing?

  • Anonymous

    The Honeybadger, it takes what it wants.

    The truth is the truth. But it is far from being self evident, Honeybadger.

    Much as I agree with your orthodox stance, don’t forget that persuasion goes very well with politeness.

  • Bill Wilkinsin

    I have had my three score years and ten and I have seen much Roman Catholic disgust. I went to a Catholic boarding school when I was ten. Fortunate for me, my older brothers were also at the same school and warned me what to expect. After one month whilst sleeping in a four bed room dormitory, I was visited by “Slippery Jack” a priest who had turned his sheepskin slippers inside out so that he could silently creep into the dormitories and interfere with the boys. In spite of his slippers I heard him enter the dormitory and he proceeded to put his hand under the bedcovers to interfere with me. However, I had taken the compass from my geometry set to bed with me. As soon as he touched me I reacted by using the point of the compass to tear a gash down his face. He jumped and shouted, waking the boys in the other dormitories. He ran out of the room with blood spilling down his face. One of the other priests soon settled everyone down to sleep. Some of the boys in another dormitory at the front of the building reported that they had seen a taxi turn up in the middle of the night and Slippery Jack was seen to get in and drive away. The next morning at breakfast, we were informed with great solemnity that Slippery Jack’s mother had take ill suddenly, and he had to go home. There was much sniggering as this tale was told. The Catholic church would have us believe that child sexual abuse was very rare, they lied, it was widespread then and it probably is just as bad today, only they cannot cover it up as they did then. I was lucky in the respect that I was not sexually abused, but several other boys were not so lucky. Within the past sixty years, seven of the boys that I knew committed suicide as teenagers and as adults. Others turned to alcohol and crime.The matter was never mentioned to me by the superior, but I am glad to say that people left me alone in that respect but they managed to find other ways of inflicting humiliation and punishment. That is the real Roman Catholic Church, (yesterday, today and tomorrow) regardless of what it preaches.

  • Honeybadger

    I know where you are coming from, pieceomilk.

    The Honeybadger takes what it needs to survive – eating cobras whole, raiding beehives at great risk to itself… but somehow survives the odd sting then carries on regardless to fill its empty tum. It also has a strong, impressive set of teeth!

    I tried being polite – believe me, I have. In the end, I changed my moniker and traded in one tack for another by speaking/writing as I find.

    It doesn’t suit everyone, I know, but we are not put on this planet to be liked.

  • Anonymous

     fair enough. You can even run backwards.

  • Honeybadger

    Haranguing tirade?! You are a past master of the dark art, bud!

    Where did you learn to speak like that? Voldemort? Or that chap called B L Zeebub?

    Brings back horrid memories of when a priest and a doctor had to be called into my old school because girls were badly affected by their tinkering with a ouija board during breaktime.

    And holy water is meaningless?

    Even Muslims use blessed water at the Hajj… it is called Zamzam water!

    The prayers recited at exorcism are coherent enough. Have you ever bothered reading them?

    If there was an Olympic gold medal for ignorance, you’d occupy the top podium!

    I would not call you a sane, rational person. You are a sad, desolate, troubled soul.

    You cannot challenge my carefully and meticulously researched topic of Sacramentals reasonably because you are not a reasonable who is more to be pitied than scolded.

    Good job you, the stuffed fish, stayed behind your glass. I might just fill it up with holy water!

    If you don’t like our faith – or, indeed, any faith – why waste your time spouting such codpoop about it on here?

    Just go away and stop being such a silly billy!

  • Honeybadger

    75,000 people were slaughtered during Henry VIII time.

    Trinity College Dublin was founded by Queen Elizabeth I. A protestant and was, for many years, a university for protestants where no Catholics were allowed to study.

    Roman Catholics were slaughtered wholesale during the French Revolution. The Sacre Coer on Montmartre in Paris was reparation for the slaughter.

    Durham, Manchester, Oxford. What do they have in common?

  • Honeybadger

    And the priest won’t marry them.

    So, Ms Brady, you are the new Pope? The New Jesus Christ?

    Not.

    Question: Would you stir up trouble at the airport because they won’t alow you to take sharp knives, scissors and knitting needles into the hand luggage?

    If the Civil Aviation Authority prohibits it, then you can stomp and whinge all you want but they won’t let you on board!

    So, why should the Roman Catholic Church permit something that is out of the question? Its visible head, The Holy Father, has spoken out against time and time again.

    The Sacrament of Matrimony is for one man and one woman.

    Take it up with God.

  • Honeybadger

    Murder, theft and adultery has existed since time imemorial…

    But it doesn’t mean it’s right.

  • Honeybadger

    So, I’m a fossil.

    That’s nice!

  • Honeybadger

    Oh, not you again!

  • David Devinish

    Honeybadger, you are more like “Rupert the Bear”, a cartoon character , and you are most loveable. We would all miss your religious comical interventions.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

    To point 1, I am saying that it is not a “mistake” that sometimes sexual activity leads to conception, but that conception cannot be determined (even if you were to accept Aristotle) as sex’s only use.  Just like although mouths presumably evolved to eat, it is not against their “goal” to use them to talk with.

    Of course, Aristotle was a great thinker, but his views on ends etc. were not meant to be, nor thought of, as “frameworks”.  The views were meant as actual science.  His views on science are not, it goes without saying, entirely outmoded.  (And since Aristotle did not even, it seems, understand the layout of a woman’s genitalia perhaps he should always have been doubted).  Basing any natural law theorising on Aristotle is then, I think misguided. If anything it should be based on evolutionary science.  
    I am not keen on that, though, because science keep changing.  If one were to base natural law conclusions on evolution though, then one would have to say that a phenomenon as common as homosexual activity is in diverse species represents some kind of evolutionary adaptation. [Not all adaptations have to have immediate results in offspring: the ability of humans to live long after child-bearing is an example of an adaptive trait for example - it's one that allows orphaned offspring to be raised by grandparents.]

    As to Catholic doctrine affirming Aristotelian teleology – yes I would agree that has been a strong part of the tradition, but it is hardly dogmatically central to faith in God, the incarnation, and the sacramental view of the world.

    Catholic moral theology once made major use of probablism (and indeed the Jansenists were condemned by the popes for rejecting it), and yet that entire framework of thinking has now passed.  So too, it is possible, will Aristotelianism.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/4OG7JS2ZILKL6NFGZXBIGZOBR4 savia

    You mean very soon, there will be no common sense left and we’ll all be in a socialist dictatorship.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/4OG7JS2ZILKL6NFGZXBIGZOBR4 savia

    Disorder here does not refer to a medical one, but to a moral one. Like we all have disorders towards lust, greed, etc. It refers to desire for certain acts, rather than to the person.

    The debate is not the origins of homosexuality, but the objective natural of sexual acts.

    There’s a difference between orientation and acts. Orientation may not be chosen, but behaviour is.

    If one takes an embodied stance, then it’s through our bodies that we interact with the world.

    Men and women are two different sexual complimentary beings who come together as one, or biblically speaking one flesh union.

    If I put my finger in your mouth, would it be a one flesh union?

    Therefore some unions cannot be called a marriage.

    It’s not that the secular world makes two much of the body, it makes too little of it.

    Thanks for engaging the debate though. 

  • Jack McFall

    Your opinion is as good as anyone else’s but opinion is not good enough without verification of some sort. Your simplistic, superficial made up, insinuations without credible references are worthless. The things that homosexuals do are also widely practiced by heterosexual persons. ….Very soon there will be no such thing as the classification of homosexual and the term will become defunct as there is now sufficient knowledge to accept that same sex relations are acceptable and it does not matter any more what the church teaches…..Human beings in many countries, Catholic countries included, have used anal penetration as a means of birth control for time in memoriam. Because of the close proximity of the rectum and the vagina and the arrangements of nerves therein, women report sexual gratification and orgasm from this activity. ….Many books on sexuality, sociology, psychology, clinical medicine and anthropology, particularly Margaret Mead report that anal penetration was a common sexual practice in many parts of the world. References are easy to find that will substantiate this proposition for open minded, lateral thinkers.

  • Mark Castilano

    The Catholic Church managed for over 1600 years without the input of the laity, and what most people thought was a matter of indifference to them…..Then they decided with Vatican II to adopt socialist principles (we are all in it together) and the laity were included. Priests ‘dressed down’ to be like the laity and bishops were called by their first name by governments ministers, civil servants, TV interviewers and there was a great “Dumbing Down”….There was a lowering of doctrinal understanding, intellectual input of which you are a perfect example… The Catholic Church introduced socialist concepts that allows even impertinent people like you can suggest what other people might mean. This sarcastic, offensive style of retort suggests that you cannot provide a reasoned educated response. You are the epitome of The Catholic Church‘s “dumbing down”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

    What are you on about?

    TCD was a Protestant foundation, but it accepted Catholics from the 19th century.  It was the RC Archbsihop McQuaid of Dublin in the 1960s who tried ban Catholics from attending.

    Sacre Coeur was built as a reparation for the sins of France that had led it to loose the Franco-Prussian war. It had nothing to do with the French Revolution.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

    Several priests ALREADY conduct such services. Occasionally some bishops attend.

  • Guest

     Sad though that is, it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

  • Tridentinus

     # Doctrine is developed in response to questioning or denial then clarification or a more precise definition is required. What you are suggesting is confusing development with reversal. Despite the examples that you will bring up, usury and slavery amongst others, the Church has never formally repudiated its infallible teaching on Faith and Morals. It seems to me that you regard your concept of the Church is the only one you are prepared to accept against the Church’s which guaranteed to be free from error by the Holy Spirit.

    ## I have no quarrel with what Cardinal Hume writes. His words, “But that experience of love is spoiled, whether it is in marriage or in 
    friendship, when we do not think and act as God wills us to think and
    act.”, obviously preclude homosexual acts as they do fornication, adultery and incest.

  • Bill Wilkinsin

    Oh, yes it has, I was too polite to say that they buggered the boys as well. If you ever see a film called “Sleepers” with Robert De Niro, Kevin Bacon, Brad Pitt, Jason Patric. That will give you some idea what they did. Why do you suppose so many of them committed suicide?

  • Guest

     That’s child abuse, not homosexuality.  When men rape little girls do we link it to heterosexuality?

    It is awful what happened and I don’t for one second condone the Catholic church covering up for those who perpetrated these awful crimes, but I don’t see what it has to do with gay people wanting to marry.

  • andrew

     The Catholic church has the word of God-the truth.

    In the end, it`s God`s will -it Will be done.

    You can complain as much as you want about the Catholic church,say what you want…That is your law you mention that will come into being.God`s law is another matter and it will come into being also,but not the way you imagine. 

  • Bill Wilkinsin

    Catholic priests who insert their penis’s into the anus of a young boys, is in your opinion nothing to do with homosexuality. …I would genuinely like to know the source of your reasoning, but I feel that it might be pointless to engage in any sort of objective discourse with a religiously biased person such as you. It does not help the catholic church to have closed minded persons like you who are willing to excuse the terrible things that the catholic church did.

  • Guest

     Agreed – there is no point discussing this with you.  Did you even read my response?  When did I excuse it?  Are you seriously saying that all gay men rape small boys?

  • Bill Wilkinsin

    I accept that gay men are normal human beings who do not bother little boys or anyone else in the same way that most other human beings do not bother anyone. I do take your point that homosexuality is not synonymous with child abuse and I have never thought it was, but it has to be pointed out as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned sexual perversion was, and still is widespread, and they have tried to cover it up. That is the real shame.

  • Jack McFall

    There can be no doubt that this fellow is an intolerable ass of supercilious proportions and anything he says must be discarded as conjured-up psychobabble….. Undoubtedly he consorts with crackpots of similar insanity and naivety in order to articulate such ill thought out, indolent hogwash.

  • Goldie

    Maybe it’s something your parents inflicted on themselves through their own choices. People know the score and the issues around annulments. It’s easier to see blame in the church rather than the people concerned who fall short.