Tue 21st Oct 2014 | Last updated: Tue 21st Oct 2014 at 11:35am

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

They sneered at Bishop Gilbert’s suggestion that gay marriage would lead to unions between one man and two women. Well, now it’s happened

In Brazil, the unthinkable has come to pass. Why not?

By on Friday, 31 August 2012

David Cameron (PA)

David Cameron (PA)

You may remember that earlier this month, I wrote about “controversial” remarks made by Bishop Hugh Gilbert of Aberdeen, who, when asked a question about the Scottish government’s plans to introduce gay “marriage”, replied that “The truth is that a government can pass any legislation it likes. Why is it all right for a man to marry another man, but not all right for him to marry two women? If we really want equality, why does that equality not extend to nieces who genuinely, truly love their uncles?”

Not unexpectedly, his remarks provoked scornful rejoinders from supporters of gay unions (marriage or not). One of them, underneath my piece, protested that “There is no political movement to make [polygamous] marriage legal. All attempts to claim that [polygamous marriage] is equivalent to same-sex marriage have failed. The claim that same-sex marriage will lead to [polygamous] marriage has been made by anti-gay campaigners for years, and has – in 11 countries so far – always been shown to be mere malicious scaremongering.”

Well, we now have polygamous civil unions (and don’t tell me that that’s not “marriage”: it’s the first step towards it, and was always intended to be so). Three people have been allowed to enter into a civil union in the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo, the Telegraph reported earlier this week. Claudia do Nascimento Domingues, a public notary, granted the request for a civil union of one man and two women, saying there is nothing in law that prevents such an arrangement. The union was estabished formally three months ago but only became public this week.

“We are only recognising what has always existed. We are not inventing anything,” said Ms Domingues. “For better or worse, it doesn’t matter, but what we considered a family before isn’t necessarily what we would consider a family today.”

You can say that again. Dr Patricia Morgan, the most important sociologist specialising in family policy today, told Simon Caldwell on this site’s homepage that she was not surprised by the ruling, and pointed out that similar attempts have been made in the Netherlands. She said that the proliferation of a range of relationships that will be legally considered equalvalent to marriage was inevitable once the institution had been redefined. And surely she is right: does anybody (anybody, that is, who isn’t trying for their own ends to underplay the disruptively revolutionary nature of what is now going on) seriously contest that this is one of the most inevitable slippery slopes we have seen for years?

“In the Netherlands,” continues Dr Morgan, “to be equal they opened up civil partnerships to heterosexuals as well as to gays but then found that there were these three-in-a-bed relationships that were seeking legal recognition; I think it is all part of the cause. Once you break away from one man and one woman, what do you expect? Once you allow two men [to marry], where are your boundaries?” Precisely: you haven’t just effected a minor readjustment: you have torn down the walls protecting the institution itself: anything goes. “People say this won’t happen,” she continues, “but where does it stop? You are going to get polygamy from Muslims, aren’t you? People are simply shutting their eyes if they think that this is not going to happen.”

Dr Morgan (who I have written about before in this column) is one of the few sensible sociologists around, and she is a specialist on the family, and particularly on the dire consequences for children of families which are not based on two married parents (of opposite sex): her classic study Marriage-Lite: The Rise of Cohabitation and its Consequences is available from Civitas as a free download.

And she has surely put her finger on the whole point. Marriage is not simply there for the good of those involved. “Part of the problem,” she says, “is the modern view of marriage as a [private relationship] based on subjective definitions of ‘love’. This is to the exclusion of its wider purpose as a public contract serving the common good by supporting the procreation and education of future generations.”

Precisely. Do you remember Theresa May’s declaration of support for “gay marriage” (the same slushy declaration that we hear on all sides): “I believe if two people care for each other, if they love each other, if they want to commit to each other and spend the rest of their lives together then they should be able to get married and that marriage should be for everyone.” And what if three people care for each other? Why not? Marriage should be for everyone. Back to Bishop Gilbert: “The truth is that a government can pass any legislation it likes. Why is it all right for a man to marry another man, but not all right for him to marry two women?”

As I write, the petition for the government to respect the immemorial understanding of marriage as being between one man and one woman (sign it now, if you haven’t already) has reached the stratospheric level of 597, 226 signatures. Oh, and for those who rejoin that that’s only a tiny proportion of the population as a whole, the reply is, of course, that most people don’t sign petitions. The point is that this is one of the highest figures ever (it may be the highest) for an online petition: and the equivalent pro gay-marriage petition (“I support the right of two people in love to get married, regardless of gender. It’s only fair”) has after some months edged up to a comparatively paltry 62, 695, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t manage very much more: it certainly won’t get anywhere near half a million.

So the support in the population at large for marriage as traditionally understood is massive and preponderant. But will that be reflected in a falling away of Cameron’s incomprehensible enthusiasm for this revolutionary change? We shall see; but I have a nasty feeling about all this.

  • andy

     You really are a pompous ass whose arrogance just about matches your ignorance, aren’t you? The Catholic Church is more old testament that new? It gave us the New Testament you ignorant self absorbed troll! As if doctors don’t do any harm either – heard of the 7 million aborted babies in the UK alone since 1967? Silly child.

  • GulliverUK

    It’s been proven that religious groups do more charity than other providers, so charity is not the domain of religious groups.

    Even small children have observed how homophobia from groups like NOM, FRC, FRI, etc., and religious groups, all cause harm.

    Not just that, but a poll of US Catholics revealed that 70% felt that messages from the pulpit contributed to LGBT suicides.  70%.  That speaks volumes doesn’t it.  Most Catholics think messages of hate come from the pulpit and contribute to suicides.  That’s shocking isn’t it?

  • GulliverUK

    I don’t understand, 16 posts in 2 years, but Disqus says your name is John, but you’re posting under the name “andy”.  Is this right?

    You’re being rather rude, and it’s not really debating when you start abusing other posters and calling them names.  It feels like bullying behaviour to me.

  • nardialop

    You are cherry picking, my point is that  marriage redefining  is having, an important impact on the freedom of expression, freedom
    of religion, and scientific research. Religious institution, researchers
    and doctors will be accused of bigotry, prosecuted and banned. Thought
    control will extend to many areas of society. As it is already happening
    in schools, research institutes, and the public arena.”  And your statements are telling me that I am right.
    I am not defending the reparation/conversion therapy, I am defending the rights of patients, doctors, researchers and parents to pursue a therapy if they consider it is necessary. There are various studies that indicate that psychological therapies can help some people, yet, there are others that indicate the contrary. You can see for example (Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse, 2007). I am sure you will find some references that discredit this research and any other that has been published or will be published.

    Contrary to what you say, this issue has not been settle. Because bullying and intimidation many researchers and doctors just do not want to deal with this. However, there is evidence that physiology can help some individuals and that more research must be done to find the proper therapy or its use. And help do not necessary imply that the individual will become heterosexual. However, if any therapy and research is forbidden, how this issue will be resolved? For centuries the schizophrenia (and many other mental illnesses) therapies has been disastrous,  just until recently positive results have been achieved. Would you have in favor to forbid physiology int the XIX century?

    The homosexual movement is trying to forbid any therapy for political reasons, since it may imply that homosexuality is a disease.  

  • JabbaPapa

    We do live an an age where incommensurable paradigms and irreconcilable epistemologies prevail.

    This is precisely why the Church condemns Modernism and Relativism, as being inherently destructive of Truth.

  • JabbaPapa

    The homosexual movement is trying to forbid any therapy for political
    reasons, since it may imply that homosexuality is a disease.

    Yes exactly — this posturing became even more pronounced after a group of genetic researchers isolated a gene that is linked with homosexuality (even though not all homosexuals have that mutation, the mutation itself is strongly linked with homosexuality, in that if you have it in your DNA there is a massively increased statistical chance of your being a homosexual).

    The gay lobby wants to have it both ways — first they want homosexuality to be “innate” so that they can protect their predatory sexual lifestyle from actions of social justice, and so that they can be free to promote their homosexuality in public ; second, they refuse that homosexuality should be innate from any medical point of view, because whenever they hear anything about pathological causes they just go “LALALALALALA I can’t hear you“…

    Oh, and simultaneously denying that sexuality can be changed, whilst doing all that they possibly can to promote conversion to homosexuality in children ; if possible via the official schooling structures, if possibly as enforced by “gay-friendly” “educational” laws.

    Except of course that in FACT, sexual orientation is NOT a constant for every single living person, and changes in sexual orientation are possible for some people — which is obvious, otherwise why try and get as much gay propaganda as possible into our schools, if they weren’t ?

  • JabbaPapa

    Nobody would dream of thinking they should have therapy if it wasn’t
    for certain Christian fundamentalists telling them they should.

    Nobody runs these therapy companies except for Christian fundamentalists.

    This is a lie, and you ought to know it — the majority of those seeking help to overcome homosexual urges do so spontaneously and voluntarily, because of their own discomfit with these urges.

    The methods deployed might be questionable, especially those claiming that they can “cure” people (rather than those more honestly promising help and assistance) — but attempts to make this sort of thing illegal are *deeply* disrespectful of the many thousands of young people who honestly wish to put up a fight against homosexual urges, in the face of a modern society that is constantly promoting sexual disorder as the pathway to “happiness”.

  • GulliverUK

    Even the most stupid of people know that homophobic bullying is a serious problem in schools, as it was with bullying based on colour.  It’s even possible that somewhere there has been a case or two of bullying based on religion !  Black History Month, and LGBT History Month have both been proven to reduce bullying, they don’t just help young black and gay kids feel they are a part of the history of society, they also teach bullies about those things, which actually results in decreased bullying.  And here were old-fashioned dimwits thinking don’t spare the rod, when the answer was not about punishing anybody, but helping them understand and accept each other

    Of course, there are some “so-called” Christians who believe that gay people should never be accepted or tolerated anywhere, and I think Jabba might be one of those !! :(

    Much like my approach to some Christians, it would be preferable to teach them about loving their neighbours, rather than demonise them and  make them feel small and bigoted and homophobic.  But at least we still have the latter option.

  • JabbaPapa

    Homosexual sex acts are dangerous to the health, and they encourage the spread of diseases.

    It was just a factual answer to a straightforward question.

    And yes, I’m certainly a “danger” to the sort of disordered and self-destructive “society” that such as you and yours want to create in your politically correct utopia.

  • JabbaPapa

    Your own point of view is positively destructive — and as for “negativity”, well I’m not the one lurking around in a web forum and posting views that are designed to attack the philosophical beliefs of most members on that forum. You are.

  • JabbaPapa

    a poll of US Catholics revealed that 70% felt that messages from the pulpit contributed to LGBT suicides

    This statistic is meaningless — surveys of opinion of who did what are not conducive to any sort of useful factuality.

    Not only is the US church the most heavily liberalised anywhere on the planet, so that US catholics are more likely than any others to have a feelgood liberal kneejerk reaction to any questions about “prejudice” and “homophobia” and all that other PC guff — but there is also a VERY powerful lobby of anti-catholicism within the Church, who will attack *anything* that they see as coming from the Tradition, viz. LCWR “nuns” passim.

  • GulliverUK

    Catholic churches teach that homosexuality is a disease, how else would you interpret “intrinsically disordered”.  The use of highly inflammatory incendiary language and the history of the church means it can only be seen as a hostile entity.

    As far as reparative therapy (a word invented by Christians to indicate brokenness, in need or repair), this is not a religious right.  Christian religions denomised people who are gay, told them they were ill, convinced others, changed the law to get others to hate them, resisted all attempts to protect people, persecuted and burned them to death over centuries.  What makes you think anybody would ever allow Christian groups to continue this?

    Firstly, it isn’t any type of religious right – where on earth did you get that one from.  A GP doesn’t have cart blanc to do as they feel like, no more than when I’m at work I can just do as I feel right.  There are job descriptions, codes of conduct, etc., which tell you what you can and can’t do in your job.  GPs and therapists are members of professional bodies.  In the UK, all the mainstream professional bodies have prohibited, with good reason, the practice of conversion therapy, because it’s exceptionally dangerous, and it is proven not to work.

    You still don’t get it.  Exodus International, the flagship group, have renounced conversation therapy, finally.

    I’m left-handed.  Did you know that like your sexual orientation your handedness develops in the womb?  Yes, it does.  On a black-board or white-board I write with my right hand, because the teacher was thick and stupid and forced me to.  It’s just a trick I learned – I’m left handed.  I write in the normal manner, on a flat surface, with my left hand – always have, always will.  My handwriting on a flat surface with my right hand is useless and almost illegible.  It was a trick I learned writing upright, in class.

    If you were a Christian and saw a passage in the Bible cursing the disabled, and you were also a GP, would you think it your right to not treat someone who is disabled? 

    Listen, if you are therapist or GP you are paid to do a job – it’s nothing to do with practising religion, you do that in church, at home, with others, but not as a paid GP or therapist – it’s not part of your job to give Christian counselling.  In the case of reparative therapy anyone found practising it in this country is likely to be thrown out of their professional body.  Everybody knows the rules on it – if you chose to ignore the rules you expect punishment, and that is nothing to do with freedom of religion.

  • JabbaPapa

    (from below) Either you didn’t read the points in the first place, or you didn’t understand them.

    This is straightforward nincompoopery — as you are neither a Christian nor a Jew, your personal opinions on Jewish and Christian Scripture are based on ignorance of the religious and Bibliological and theological realities.

    You *literally* do not know what you’re talking about.

    Not to mention that your opinion requires you to have made several quite basic cognitive, hermeneutic, literary, philosophical, and cultural mistakes; that are not conducive to any kind of praiseworthy feelings towards your teachers.

  • JabbaPapa

    All that superior education must put quite the bit of pressure on the old grey and spongy …

  • GulliverUK

    That is how debate takes place.  One person sets out their beliefs, then someone agrees or disagrees.  I’m a little surprised you didn’t know that !

    Are you saying that people can post on this web site if they agree entirely with the point made in the article?

    If so, I shall remind you next time you are over at the Telegraph or Guardian spouting your usual lies and homophobia.

    Did you want me to quote some of the shocking things you’ve been saying there?  How do you think these remarks reflect on other Christians?  Do you not fear that such homophobia simply confirms a stereotype of Christians as bigots and homophobes, and encourages negative attitudes towards Christians.  Because I do, and I think it’s wrong to go around doing that and causing problems for other Christians.  Luckily I know people with your attitude are few and far between, and that I’d be more than happy to call most Christians .. friend.

  • GulliverUK

    Yeah, right.  I’m fairly sure I know more about the clobber passages than you do, having done quite a lot of reaching in to them.

    It helps not to be a Christian or Jew at this point because that way I won’t let religious doctrines or ideology interfere with my reasoning or scientific-based logic.

    I can be dispassionate and scientific and honest about the passages because they’re largely meaningless to me – I know they are made-up, and so does Bart Erhman and a lot of fundamentalists and Evangelicals.  But since they’re important to some other people, I’m trying to understand them.  I could just have said it’s all garbage and not worth bothering with, but I’m trying to learn and understand why it is people like you have interpreted the passages in your particular way.

    In the same sense I could say that unless you are gay you should keep quiet about things you know absolutely nothing about.  We’d have to be universally disgusted at the poor level of education some people leave school with.

  • GulliverUK

    “a modern society that is constantly promoting sexual disorder as the pathway to “happiness”.
    That language clearly indicates you believe being gay to be a “disorder”, which makes what you said earlier a lie.

    Luckily, most other people in society see it as nothing other than what it is, simply a natural part of human sexual diversity, biologically based, from birth.  We don’t really have much in the way of conversion therapy groups here, and they can’t use professional therapists  because the practise is banned in their codes of conduct.

    I don’t know of ANY reparative therapy groups which are not religiously-based.

    IF you know of ONE single group that is not religiously based, now is the time to tell me.  This is an area where I’ve done quite a lot of research.

  • Jonathan West

    The spread of STDs is a consequenceof promisuity, not homosexuality. Moreover safe sex is able greatly to reduce the risks of disease.

    But it seems to me that your definition of harm does not apply to a faithful homosexual relationship, and if we want to discourage promiscuity, we should do all in our power to encourage and support faithful relationships.So what is your objection to same-sex marriage which would encourage such faithfulness?

  • http://cumlazaro.blogspot.com/ Lazarus

    Where I think you’re misunderstanding the Catholic approach is that you’re thinking of it in terms of morality simply as arbitrary command: do this, do that -without any reason behind it. Catholic morality is based on a (claimed) understanding of what constitutes human flourishing: so what is wrong about homosexualityis not (just) that it goes against divine command, but that it undermines human flourishing.

    Now we’re not going to be able to settle that in a combox debate, but the big problem for me and most orthodox Catholics is that, while the Catholic understanding of sex makes sense as a whole system, I just don’t understand the  philosophical underpinnings of the anti-Catholic case. It seems to rest entirely on the claim that sex should be seen as a technique of pleasure -but that neither seems to support the latest drive for same sex ‘marriage’ (why would you want to ‘cramp’   the queerness of a fluid search for pleasure?); nor does it seem a particularly deep understanding of pleasure (which, as Aristotle noted, seems more to follow the goodness of an act rather than dictate its goodness). 

    Cafeteria Catholics don’t really understand the  philosophical/theological basis of Catholic teaching. For them, it’s just a matter of exchanging an arbitrary Church dogma for a view which is much more socially acceptable. But for those of us who do understand the background (or at least have a slightly better grasp of it!) it just simply isn’t detachable from a complete and deep picture of what it is to live well as a human being.

    In sum, as far as I can understand, I would be failing in my care and love for myself and others if I abandoned teachings which I understand in favour of teachings which, whilst more socially convenient for me to hold, don’t really make sense.

  • Jonathan West

    The natural law argument was based in part of the idea that other animals don’t do it and neither should humans. Now we know that animals do it, you are now saying it is because they do that we shouldn’t.

  • JabbaPapa

    (moved to less thin zone)

    Even
    the most stupid of people

    What an absolute utterly horrid attitude !!!

    Has anyone ever taught you how to parade yourself in civilised society ???

    (rhetorical question BTW — the answer obviously being “no”)

    know that homophobic bullying is a serious
    problem in schools

    Well whoooop-de-doo — oooh the poor gayz are being picked on, as if nobody but teh gayz was being bullied !!!

    ITEM !! Kids are not “homophobes” — they’re just kids, and your whingeing about it online will not change human nature

    ITEM !! Gay propaganda in classrooms will make things worse, not better — 98.5% of people being non-gay.

    ITEM !! Who the heck has never been bullied in school except for a bully ???

    ITEM !! Do you care about non-”homophobic” bullying in the slightest ?

    ITEM !! Homosexuals can be bullies too !!! Heck, have you ever heard about homosexual bullies raping children in school or elsewhere ???

    ITEM !! Double standards are rampant in our wonderful “politically correct” utopia !!!

    Of course, there are some “so-called” Christians who believe that gay
    people should never be accepted or tolerated anywhere, and I think
    Jabba might be one of those !! :(

    Believe whatever >c-word< you want to, but don't expect me to condone your biases nor prejudice.

    Much like my approach to some Christians, it would be preferable to
    teach them about loving their neighbours, rather than demonise them and
     make them feel small and bigoted and homophobic.  But at least we still
    have the latter option.

    Oh stop being so flipping self-congratulatory !!!!

    Your “holier-than-thou” attitude is extremely offensive.

  • JabbaPapa

    “a modern society that is constantly promoting sexual disorder as the pathway to “happiness”.

    That language clearly indicates you believe being gay to be a “disorder”, which makes what you said earlier a lie.

    I do not share your own obsessiveness with these abnormal sexual urges, only experienced by 1.5% of people.

    That statement was “gender-neutral”, to use your own jargon.

    That was a comment about society, not about this or that individual homosexual person.

    Luckily, most other people in society see it as nothing other than
    what it is, simply a natural part of human sexual diversity,
    biologically based, from birth.

    Cripes, the ideology of what makes people gay is naïve !!!

    Rationality — irrespective of differences in natural ability, education, knowledge, ideology, social status, religion, or politics — is the subjection of the body to the mind.

    What you are proposing is the exact opposite.

    We don’t really have much in the way of
    conversion therapy groups here, and they can’t use professional
    therapists  because the practise is banned in their codes of conduct.

    Bloody politicians interfering in medical matters that they have no competence for !!!!

    I don’t know of ANY reparative therapy groups which are not religiously-based.

    IF you know of ONE single group that is not religiously based, now is
    the time to tell me.  This is an area where I’ve done quite a lot of
    research.

    They’re called psychotherapists and psychologists.

  • GulliverUK

    Jabba, you get more offensive by the post.  I’m surprised, perhaps the correct word is “concerned”, that other Catholics aren’t pulling you up on your behaviour – perhaps this is normal for Catholic I everybody else is just very polite.  6% of the UK population identified as LGB and a further 8% said they had some same-sex attraction or were engaged in same-sex sexual activity, but who still self-identified as heterosexual.  This is from the 2009 Equality and Human Rights Commission study.  A not insignificant number, as Catechism 2358 also attests to.

    Not really sure what the % points are here for you – why you fell the need to paint us as the tiniest number possible, perhaps so you can therefore say that the feelings and rights of such a tiny minority wouldn’t matter, and they shouldn’t be taken notice of.  Something along those lines I expect.

    Anti-gay bullying in schools is endemic, according to teachers unions, and all parties acknowledged it was a serious problem and needed to be tackled.  To repeat 70% of US Catholics in a poll believed messages from the pulpit contributed to LGBT suicides, and you also find bullying at school to be a serious factor in that also.  I’ve never heard of one Christian killing themselves because they chose to be Christian, but there are been a lot of suicides in the US, elsewhere, and there is a hidden problem with suicides here in the UK.
    Schoolboy, 15, jumped to his death after rumours he was gay
    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/03/30/schoolboy-15-jumped-to-his-death-after-rumours-he-was-gay/

    Obviously you know that Damilola Taylor was bullied because people believed he was gay, before he was murdered in 2000.   

    In Scotland Stuart Walker was viciously attacked, murdered and set on fire because he was gay.
    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/family-of-gay-slaying-lamppost-murder-1085022

    A report in a Kent newspaper reported a suicide of a young man bullied for being gay at school a few months back, yet it never seemed to reach even the gay news media – hence, the problem is going unreported and hidden.

    All bullying is serious, but homophobic bullying, and that based on race, or other immutable factors, is clearly the most serious.  You can’t change being gay, you can change being black, you can change if you have a disability.  You can do something about weight, or having thick glasses – although weight-loss might be difficult and take a long time, and not everybody would be able to afford contact lenses in place of glasses.

    Rather, the best solution, is to teach people to accept diversity of our human nature and embrace those differences and work together.  

    LGBT history is useful in stopping that bullying behaviour, and schools need to be a safe space for all kids, even Catholics !   You could just as easily say there should be no faith schools, and that the only talk about religion should be a mention in the classes dealing with cultural beliefs in society.  That idea has a lot of traction with the public, most of whom are completely against faith schools.  Faith schools have also been shown to have serious failing in pastoral care and other support for students and pupils who are LGBT – a failing which should see serious consequences.  There is a legal obligation is provide protection from harassment, including bullying, and schools that don’t attempt, wholeheartedly, to sort the problem out are, no doubt, from what is going on in the rest of the world, … going to end up in court, or even find their schools subject to investigation.  So the cheap, quick, easy, best solution is to introduce LGBT history for a week or month per year, until the problem naturally goes away.

    This point;

    “ITEM !! Homosexuals can be bullies too !!! Heck, have you ever heard about homosexual bullies raping children in school or elsewhere ???”

    Please remember the Catholic church is embroiled in the largest organised child abuse scandal ever known, having paid out $2.4 BILLIONS already in settlements, with tens of thousands of priests, bishops and cardinals involved, and hundreds of thousands of children.  There are also adult female parishioners who have been sexually assaulted by clergy, and nuns.

    But what you speak of above — I have never heard of.

    I’m beginning to think you’re not Catholic at all, because the way you’re behaving brings the Catholic name in to disrepute, and badly tarnishes your own reputation.  I can only assume there is some mental reasoning for this, or that you are here not to defend the Catholic faith, but to destroy it, on purpose.  You’re sort of a Stephen Green on steroids. Or perhaps you’re an atheist just trying to portray Catholics as unhinged, and if that’s the case I can see by the polling data that the majority are not.

  • GulliverUK

    1. Psychological associations themselves have researched, as they do, reparative therapy, found it doesn’t work, found it is harmful and dangerous, and can lead to depression and suicide.  That is why they banned it.  Nothing to do with politicians.

    2. Thanks for confirming that you don’t know of one single reparative therapy group which isn’t linked to religion.

    3. Sexual attraction to the same-sex is seen not only in humans but in a large number of species.  1500 have been observed, and 500 fully documented in “Biological Exuberance” by Bruce Bagemihl.  It’s quite clearly not a social man-made society phenomena, so you can stop blaming the 60s (been around forever, even in cave paintings), or pop music, or Estrogens  in water supplies, or political or some plot for world domination (Iran today claimed this), or any of the other hundreds of silly and ridiculous claims made in the past.

    4. Kids in school won’t turn gay if you teach them about historical figures who were gay, and their contribution to society, but it will help reduce or eliminate bullying.

    5. Gay to straight conversion doesn’t work, just like straight to gay doesn’t.  I don’t think teaching Black History makes white kids want to be black – but I guess you’re right now constructing a contemptibly stupid argument that it in fact does !

    6. Clearly you think your God makes junk, because if, like all those animals, sexual orientation is fixed at birth (which it is), and from the start of the human race (cave paintings as proof), then it’s clearly the will of your God.  That’s irrefutable logic, however much you will attempt to deny it.  By interfering with His divine plan you risk burning in the everlasting fiery lakes of hell, … one would imagine !  :-p

    I fear you’re getting more and more wound up and it’s me that doing it, and I don’t mean to, I’m only trying to have a dialogue and put forward my view, so I can also see yours.  I don’t want you to burst a blood vessel or injure yourself so perhaps it’s time to respect when threads have come to their natural conclusion.   We’ve moved off-topic from polygamy to the inevitable debate of “Is it ok to be Gay?”, to which the obvious answer is yes, and is it ok to act on those feelings …. absolutely.  If there’s a God He gave you that sexual orientation for a reason and had a specific plan, a divine plan, which should not be interfered with.  Any that interfere with the divine plan will surely face terrible punishment and consequences.  As Carlin says “what’s the point of having a divine plan if some dumb [so and so] with a two-bit Bible can come along and f**k up your plan”.

    May you find peace and a replacement heart Jabba; the one you currently have is made out of cement  :(

  • http://cumlazaro.blogspot.com/ Lazarus

    The split between Christianity and (Rabbinical) Judaism is as much a split about the interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures as anything else -so it’s not sensible to claim that Rabbinical interpretations automatically trump those the Church. 

    But I’m a big fan of the Chief Rabbi, so let’s hear from him: 

    “Our understanding of marriage from time immemorial has been that of a union between a man and a woman.“Any attempt to redefine this sacred institution would be to undermine the concept of marriage.”http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9352603/Chief-Rabbi-voices-opposition-to-gay-marriage.html 

  • http://cumlazaro.blogspot.com/ Lazarus

    Part of the difficulty with arguing with you is that you bring in too many issues at once: it reads like the weekly propaganda news from Lord Haw-Haw broadcast to the blitzed natives. (I suspect most of us aren’t grateful even if we are amused.)

    Amid the clouds of smug you’re sending up, you’re completely confounding same sex attraction and a homosexual identity. Whilst the former is undoubtedly widespread, the construction of a homosexual identity out of it is demonstrably the result of particular time and place and culture (unless you’re going to argue that all those cultures such as the Ancient Greeks who didn’t construct same sex attraction that way had a different set of genes?). And I’m not quite sure why the construction of an identity based on the absolute rejection of intimacy with adult females should be thought an obviously good way of dealing the issue. (I suspect that soon enough we’ll have moved as a society onto a rather more fluid idea of sexual identity than the current fave of homosexual essentialism. Oddly, I think that would be more in keeping with the (pre-modern) basis of Catholic teaching which is essentialist about biology but not about attractions.)

    Difficult to know where to break into your campaign of shock and awe! How about this again from the ever excellent Peter Ould on the changes in Exodus International you’ve mentioned:

    ‘I don’t see that as a rejection of RT. Rather, I see it as trying to clarify what RT can and can’t achieve. If someone who has experienced benefit from RT (including this author) is honest about where they are now with their sexual attractions, they will very rarely tell you that they have reached a point where they never ever have same-sex attraction. This is almost an unachievable end point (though some do reach it by the grace of God).  This is the emphasis that Alan Chambers is trying to make, not that RT doesn’t work (he never says that anywhere) but rather that it is very rare that RT provides a complete success (if “success” is deemed 100% heterosexual attraction).’

    http://www.peter-ould.net/2012/07/09/an-exodus-from-exodus/ 

  • GulliverUK

    A lot of people have questioned who, exactly, he purports to speak for as it’s certainly not a view which all Jewish groups hold.  Liberal Jews and Reform Jews don’t hold that view, and in fact the “Rabbinical Assembly’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, which sets halakhic policy for the Conservative movement, has voted unanimously to provide the approximately 1,600 Conservative rabbis with guidelines on performing same-sex marriages.
    http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/conservative-movement-sanctions-same-sex-marriage-1.433911

    and as you’ll know Israel supports equal rights for people who are gay, and have Pride celebrations.  So Sacks, normally largely sensible, has come across as a lonely voice.  His role is more ceremonial than involved, and London-centric.You also have liberal wings of Buddhists and the Pagan
    Federation supporting equal marriage, most political parties, including now the Alliance Party, and a ton of MPs, papers, plenty of CoE clergy and Bishops, there are Catholic groups in favour.The Church of England will come around, whether it is some sort of established church (which won’t last for a great deal longer) or otherwise.  The extreme right-wing dogma of the Catholic church will also be replaced, in time, with more liberal and accepting one, I’m sure.  But give it another 50-100 years perhaps; we’ll all be dead and long since forgotten.  It’s sad that currently the Catholic church feels, to me, like it has more in common with Forza Nuova than with the views of Catholic congregants - I hesitate to use followers, as they aren’t following, but leading, with liberate inclusive caring compassionate and pragmatic views.  As Cardinal Martini said, the leadership is about 200 years behind the times.  I hate to correct a Cardinal, but did he leave off a leading “1″ ! :)That’s my final post – I said I was going, I must go.  Jabba is getting wound up with me and it’s also my oath to do no harm, … or the least amount of harm I can given doing do harm involves never discussing anything for fear of upsetting people.thanks for your helpful posts, bye ! 

  • GulliverUK

    The last person I would ask to interpret Alan Chambers is Peter Ould, who is in favour of this abusive treatment.  To acknowledge that Exodus is exiting the anti-gay world would be an admission Ould has been wrong all along.  RT is pure evil.  The way to deal with the issue is to ensure that people don’t feel being themselves is wrong.  It really is that simple !  How about if I said you were mentally ill and needed therapy because being a Catholic was not normal, believing all sort of weird crazy stuff, and that we could “fix” you so you didn’t have to have these abnormal unnatural feelings any more, and wouldn’t need to indulge in prayer (which is obviously a sin :-p).  Does being a Catholic feel natural to you?  Does it feel like something you were meant to be?

  • JabbaPapa

     pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ………………..

    Another large bundle of tedious propaganda to deal with then…

    1. Psychological associations themselves have researched, as they do,
    reparative therapy, found it doesn’t work, found it is harmful and
    dangerous, and can lead to depression and suicide.  That is why they banned it.  Nothing to do with politicians.

    In fact, they have a low success rate, not zero.

    Psychologists routinely assume that animal desires are healthy and good, and teach people that sexual promiscuity is a positive. These are ideological views, and irreconcilable with any objective analses of the human condition.

    2. Thanks for confirming that you don’t know of one single reparative therapy group which isn’t linked to religion.

    Why on EARTH should I be aware of some weird detail that only gay sex obsessives might be interested in ? Go and google if you want the answer to your question (which I doubt).

    3. Sexual attraction to the same-sex is seen not only in humans but in a large number of species.

    /facepalm/

    a) Has anybody denied the existence of homosexuality ?

    b) So what ?

    c) Encouraging people to behave like wild animals is ethically reprehensible.

    4. Kids in school won’t turn gay if you teach them about historical
    figures who were gay, and their contribution to society, but it will
    help reduce or eliminate bullying. And give them a sense of self-worth,
    and ensure they feel part of society, an included and valued part of
    society – we all need to feel that.

    Utopianism.

    In fact, pointing out to a bunch of children exactly what homosexuality entails will just increase the amounts of bullying etc.

    Child psychology = “if it’s different, it’s wrong”

    5. Gay to straight conversion doesn’t work, just like straight to gay
    doesn’t.  I don’t think teaching Black History makes white kids want to
    be black – but I guess you’re right now constructing a contemptibly
    stupid argument that it in fact does

    You’re just spreading the current homosexualist propaganda — totally unlike what it was 20 years ago, and likely totally unlike what it will be in 20 years time.

    Your idea about “conversion” is ludicrous. It’s not a bad Science Fiction TV series.

    The reality is that some people successfully repress their unwanted sexual urges, and perhaps even adopt the opposite one. A minority, yes. But not 0%

    None of your caricatural rubbish presentation.

    6. Clearly you think your God makes junk, because if, like all those
    animals, sexual orientation is fixed at birth (which it is), and from
    the start of the human race (cave paintings as proof), then it’s clearly
    the will of your God.  That’s irrefutable logic, however much you will
    attempt to deny it.  By interfering with His divine plan you risk
    burning in the everlasting fiery lakes of hell, … one would imagine !
     :-p

    Your weird pseudo-religion is frankly embarrassing.

    Go and write some fanfic or something…

    We’ve moved off-topic from polygamy to the inevitable debate of “Is it
    ok to be Gay?”, to which the obvious answer is yes, and is it ok to act
    on those feelings …. absolutely.

    You’ve chosen this topic yourself.

    Is it OK to be gay ? Well, if you can’t help it, what choice do you have ? Usually, none.

    Is it OK to act on those feelings ? Not to risk your health, no, nor that of others around you. But again, if you can’t help yourself ? What choice ?

    … Like I said, you do not understand Catholic doctrine on this and related questions, nor do you understand the nature of sin in Catholicism. HINT : no, it’s not like the Protestant version of it.

    If there’s a God He gave you that sexual orientation for a reason and
    had a specific plan, a divine plan, which should not be interfered with.

    Ridiculous — you do not get to define my personal relationship with God.

    Spirituality is the opposite of sensuality, contrary to your ludicrous claim.

    Any that interfere with the divine plan will surely face terrible punishment and consequences.

    I can’t help it if you’ve been listening to Protestant rubbish.

    May you find peace and a replacement heart Jabba; the one you currently have is made out of cement  :(

    I’m NOT the one trying to justify obliterating the religious beliefs of millions in order to favour some few thousands.

    So stop pretending I don’t care, when you quite obviously care not a jot for the beliefs of those millions that you want to trample roughshod.

  • jonathanbird

    Polygamy? Like the Mormons? Doesn’t seem to bother the American voter…!

  • http://cumlazaro.blogspot.com/ Lazarus

    @GulliverUK:disqus 

    Brought up from below as I couldn’t let you get the last word!!

    The Chief Rabbi speaks for the majority of British Jews. He also speaks for the unanimous Rabbinical tradition up until very late in the twentieth century. You suggested we should listen to how Jews interpret the Hebrew scriptures. Well, that’s how they do it: no homosexual marriage. No homosexual activity.

    Judaism and Catholicism are both plagued by those who wish to compromise their fundamental teachings; and those who don’t understand those teachings and wish to fit in with the surrounding society. But, as I’ve said elsewhere, Catholic teaching as it stands makes sense: start chopping bits off here and there and you might get something that will everyone like you more, but you will not get something that possesses theological or philosophical integrity. I’m sure the Chief Rabbi would say something similar about Orthodox Judaism and its teachings on sex.

    Au revoir, I suspect, rather than goodbye!

  • JabbaPapa

    I’m surprised … that other Catholics aren’t pulling you up on your behaviour

    Well what about YOUR behaviour ???

    Do you really expect to just breeze in here and deny and vilify people’s beliefs and not be challenged, and not face people angry at your manipulations ???

    The fact is that you don’t give a >s-word< about the feelings of Catholics, and instead you care only about the feelings of a few thousand politically active gays.

    This is from the 2009 Equality and Human Rights Commission study.

    These studies routinely exaggerate the numbers of homosexuals for political reasons.

    All you need do, unless you’re living in whichever ghetto, is look around with open eyes, and you’ll see that homosexuals are a minuscule minority.

    The most objective study I’ve yet to see puts the population worldwide at about 1.5% — which is to say 1% of lesbians, 2% of homosexual men.

    Of course there can be local and regional and national variations, sometimes even quite extreme — with some local populations having a homosexual population close to 0%, others as high as 15-20% — but even in the Marais in Paris, where I used to live, 20% sounds about right to me…

    It is obviously absurd to believe that 6% of the general UK population is gay — though that’s probably true of London, Oxford, and other such places.

    Not really sure what the % points are here for you – why you fell the
    need to paint us as the tiniest number possible, perhaps so you can
    therefore say that the feelings and rights of such a tiny minority
    wouldn’t matter, and they shouldn’t be taken notice of.  Something along
    those lines I expect.

    Rubbish, you’re just interpreting my post according to your own prejudice.

    I’ve never heard of one Christian killing themselves because they chose to be Christian

    ???????????

    Category error — a religion is not a sexual identity.

    Rather, the best solution, is to teach people to accept diversity of our
    human nature and embrace those differences and work together. 

    Right — and the *best* way to do that is obviously to criminalise religious beliefs, and force religious people to commit irreligious acts…

    You just don’t GET what this is about, do you ??

    Nobody wants to attack, vilify, nor exclude gays — everyone wants to defend religious freedom against this outrageous attack against it.

    So the cheap, quick, easy, best solution is to introduce LGBT history
    for a week or month per year, until the problem naturally goes away.

    What a perfectly revolting idea !!!

    Have you read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley ?

    You’re suggesting the teaching of bestiality and brute carnality in the place of rationality and humanity.

    And then you wonder : hmmmmm how come we had all of that awful rioting and looting ????

  • JabbaPapa

    We don’t really have much in the way of conversion therapy groups here,
    and they can’t use professional therapists  because the practise is
    banned in their codes of conduct

    Right — so ban the groups, then act all surprised when they don’t exist …

    You homosexualists really do take the biscuit, don’t you …

  • http://cumlazaro.blogspot.com/ Lazarus

    1) Completely unfair to Peter Ould. You could check with him yourself, but I think his position is clearly that, if someone wants help to deal with unwanted urges, they should be given it. Not with the expectation that there’s going to be a miracle cure, but simply as part of common humanity and as part of a commitment to being guided in counselling by the viewpoint of the person who is being counselled rather than an ideology. (He’s often discussed issues around RP and is by no means an uncritical supporter.)

    2) I’m quite frequently told these things by others about Catholicism and indeed my character! But look, it’s precisely that my identity (as a Catholic, as a Scot, as a husband etc) doesn’t come as clearcut as apparently yours does as gay that I’m pretty suspicious of the sort of gay essentialism you’ve signed up to: I’ve never experienced the sort of blind certainty you have about identity and everything I know about identity formation doesn’t support the sort of narrative you’re putting forward.

    On Catholic RT, if I’d decided that being a Catholic was wrong and yet I was troubled by all sorts of past habits/desires, then I might quite like to have support, even counselling, to get over them. Equally,being a Catholic, if I was troubled by (say) strong aversion to incense and Latin, again, it might be quite helpful to have someone to support me in my troubles. That just sounds like common sense.The fact that you’re suggesting that this commonsense approach shouldn’t be available again smacks of ideology rather than the sort of care counselling should embody, or indeed, the complexity of how people might quite legitimately want to respond to same sex desire or, indeed, any sort of desire.

  • JabbaPapa

    The spread of STDs is a consequenceof promisuity, not homosexuality.

    Gay sex as practised by men is in fact inherently harmful to the health. This is not limited to STDs, but they do spread far more easily between gay men than any other category.

  • JabbaPapa

    Don’t be pathetic — Natural Law includes rationality, and doesn’t exclude it.

    We have control of our bodies — wild animals do not.

    Our sexual activities can be governed by the intellect, theirs cannot.

    The biological purpose of sex continues to be procreation, not entertainment.

  • nardialop

     

    1.    
    Catholic Church do not teach that homosexuality
    is a disease, it teaches that the homosexual life style is a sin: The church
    states that: “””Homosexual acts are never morally acceptable. Such acts
    never lead to happiness,” he said, because they are “intrinsically
    disordered,” meaning they are not directed to the bonds of marriage and
    the goal of procreation that are “part of God’s design.”  (Signed by 300 Catholic Bishops in Baltimore,
    2006).

     

    2.    
    I never said that reparative therapy is a religious
    right. I said that: marriage redefining  is having, an important impact on
    the freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and scientific research.
    Religious institution, researchers and doctors will be accused of bigotry,
    prosecuted and banned. Thought control will extend to many areas of society.

     

    3.    
    A true Christian do not demonize anyone.
    Christianity is the origin of equality and human rights concepts.

     

    4.    
    Religious rights apply to the freedom of
    religion of individuals.

     

    5.    
    No I do not know that “….like your sexual
    orientation your handedness develops in the womb” Neither does the American Physiological
    Association: They stated that: “There is no consensus among scientists
    about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual,
    gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the
    possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on
    sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to
    conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or
    factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex
    roles…” APA, 2009.

     

    6.    
    “Everybody knows the rules on it – if you chose
    to ignore the rules you expect punishment, and that is nothing to do with
    freedom of religion.”  With this
    statement you are giving me more arguments (see 2). And, yes, it has to do with
    the religion freedom of patients and/or parents.

  • nardialop

    GulliverUK 

    1. Catholic Church do not teach that homosexuality is a disease, it teaches that the homosexual life style is a sin and makes a difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts: The church states that: “””Homosexual acts are never morally acceptable. Such acts never lead to happiness,” he said, because they are “intrinsically disordered,” meaning they are not directed to the bonds of marriage and the goal of procreation that are “part of God’s design.”  (Signed by 300 Catholic Bishops in Baltimore, 2006).

    2.  I never said that reparative therapy is a religious right. I said that: marriage redefining  is having, an important impact on the freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and scientific research. Religious institution, researchers and doctors will be accused of bigotry, prosecuted and banned. Thought control will extend to many areas of society. My point is that any person should have the right to look for therapy it he considers that he needs it. And he should be able to find therapy that is compatible with his religious believes.

    3. A true Christian do not demonize anyone. Christianity is the origin of equality and human rights concepts.  

    4.    Religious rights apply to the freedom of religion of individuals.

    5.    No I do not know that “….like your sexual orientation your handedness develops in the womb” Neither does the American Physiological Association: They stated that: “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual,
    gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or
    factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…” APA, 2009.

    6.  “Everybody knows the rules on it – if you chose to ignore the rules you expect punishment, and that is nothing to do with freedom of religion.”  With this statement you are giving me more arguments (see 2). And, yes, it has to do with the religion freedom of patients and/or parents.

  • an observer

    Perhaps if we stop allowing the supporters to rename what it is, sodomy may be less easy to sell….
    I think that if we identify sodomy as sodomy, instead of “same-sex “marriage””, we might start to help rational people reconsider “tolerance”.

  • Jonathan West

     Lets see if we can apply some reason to the question of the “biological purpose of sex”.

    Leaving comments on the CH forums has nothing to do with procreation, and we both do it more for entertainment than anything else (and that includes the hope that we might impart or receive an enlightening thought in the process). But I think there is no biblical or catholic injunction on it because it isn’t thought of as a sexual activity.

    So how about kissing? That is done for entertainment, but of itself cannot lead to procreation, although it is arguably a sexual activity. Should kissing be banned? I think you would agree that this would be silly.

    But now we get into murky waters of whether kissing should be counted as a sexual activity or not. It depends entirely on how you define it. If it is counted as a sexual activity, then we can reasonably argue that we have found an exception to your one biological purpose for sex. But if we reclassify kissing so it is not a sexual activity, then what is to stop us reclassifying other things as well, such as homosexual intercourse?

    In a way, that would get the church very much off the hook. same-sex sex isn’t sex, so the rules on sex for procreation don’t apply. Everybody is happy!

    Except I doubt that you are going to go along with that.

    From my point of view, your claim that “the biological purpose of sex is procreation, not entertainment” is not self-evidently true, and also (as I have indicated above) is even somewhat ambiguous. Therefore, if I’m going to take you seriously, I would need both a clarification of your statement and evidence supporting it.

    Over to you.

  • gentlemind

    Purpose and Use. The purpose of a hammer is found in its shape, substance and effect. Regardless of how a hammer is used, the hammer’s purpose remains unchanged. Regardless of the way a brain surgeon uses their position, the purpose of a brain surgeon remains. Regardless of how anybody uses their marriage, the shape substances and effect of marriage shows that its purpose is to bind procreation to parenting. And regardless of how anybody uses their body, the shape substance and effect of a human body shows that the purpose of a body is to unite with the opposite sex.

  • http://ecclesandbosco.blogspot.com/ ecclesiastes

    It actually reflects rather badly on you to play the race card so clumsily. Obviously Rosa should have had the same rights as any white person.

    I never mentioned civil partnerships. I said that homosexuals have the right to marry people of the opposite sex.

    The Gospels are very good at clearing up your confusion, because they define marriage in terms of two people of the opposite sex.

  • GulliverUK

    Don’t give up the day job, comedy really isn’t your thing.  And which Gospels are you talking about – the 4 that were chosen, or the 50 which were written.  And of those 4 we have a large number of copies, 5500, which all have differences.  The story about Jesus saving the women who had committed adultery from stoning, didn’t appear in the early copies of the Gospel, but was added 300 years later — hardly an oversight, more of a fabrication.  We have no original copies of the Gospel manuscripts – so nobody knows what they really said, because they’ve been copied and changed, added to, had things removed, etc.  See Bart Erhman for more info – he’s an expert.

    One thing the Gospels that we have do show – Jesus never condemned same-sex relationships – he said nothing about them.  The only single reference to people being attracted to the same-sex was the term “born eunuch”, but that’s beyond your understanding I think.

    No idea why you’re trolling an old, dead, thread !

  • whytheworldisending

    Sections 64, 65 , 69 and 70 of the Sexual Offences Act are looking vulnerable to attack. They prohibit incest, bestiality and necrophilia. Unbelievably the MAXIMUM sentence for incest, bestiality AND necrophilia is only 2 years. Polygamy is already out there and not prosecuted. The nation is going down the toilet, thanks to corrupt and devious “modernising” politicians. There are some things however that never change, and there will be a backlash. 

  • Pingback: Dr. Vincent Malfitano