Fri 24th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Fri 24th Oct 2014 at 18:39pm

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.

  • JabbaPapa

    LIES and FALSEHOODS — polygamy has just been legalised in Brasil, viz. contents of article, where “gay marriage” is also legal.

  • JabbaPapa

    You have a stylised version of marriage with specifications to match what you currently believe

    Are you talking to yourself ???

  • JabbaPapa

    How about this? We could start by agreeing to condemn all sexual
    activity that took place outside a stable, lifelong and sexually
    exclusive partnership.

    Such “sexually
    exclusive partnerships” are contrary to Christian doctrine as well as to relativist materialist doctrine.

    You’re just pandering to the wreckers — give them an inch, and they’ll take a yard.

    Fornication and adultery continue to be sinful.

  • JabbaPapa

    CRIPES the gay propaganda is flowing this evening !!!!

  • GulliverUK

    I’ve no idea where you dug up that particularly interesting version of the text – it’s one I’ve never seen before.  Not even listed at;
    http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm

    That is not what Leviticus 18:22 actually says;

    And with a male, thou shalt not lie down in a woman’s bed; it is an abomination.

    This is a word-for-word translation and about as best you’ll ever get it.

    1. All Bibles have had the words “in a women’s bed” removed, which changed the meaning.
    2. Gay men don’t lie down in women’s beds, they have their own.
    3. In its original form it doesn’t specify the gender of the person lying down with the male.  It could relate to adultery with another women.
    4. Most likely it refers to temple shrine prostitutes because immediately preceding it is the reference to Molech, and the Pagan fertility rituals and this would have logically been the next verse, referring to having sex with temple shrine prostitutes.

    It’s is valid to point out there are 5500 copies of the manuscripts for the Gospels, and there are hundreds of thousands of differences in them, for example early manuscripts leave out the adulterous women who Jesus saved from stoning – that was added 300 years after the first copy of that manuscript.  If I mention the words Bart Erhman you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about.

    I don’t think we want to go there – my point is not to come here and take your beliefs apart line by line, but to argue reasoned arguments in favour of others seeking the truth themselves.  

  • Simon Platt

    Mormons cannot be considered Christians on several grounds, principal among which is their famously defective understanding of baptism.

    Of course they tend to claim differently – but you can hardly expect your interlocutors at the Catholic Herald to be impressed by that.

  • GulliverUK

    “I appreciate that, from your perspective, it mustn’t matter very much which variety of sky-fairy worship you’re dealing with”
    Ok, you’ll have to excuse my ignorance.  I’m sure my posts provide great amusement for many Catholics here and there.  As far as Christian faiths go, you are all worshipping the same “sky-fairy”, although I obviously don’t understand the complex relationship between all the different versions of belief and which faiths call which other faiths “heretics”, except that many of you call Mormons such.  I’m not sure who Ross Divine is – I was just quoting the historical speeches.  I have insufficient knowledge to put them in context, except to point out that historically people believed very differently to today, although in fact it was only two hundred years ago for the speeches.  But the part about polygamy was useful, acknowledging that Hebrews had polygamous marriages. 

  • GulliverUK

    “well-informed experts will tell you that nations across the globe are encountering demographic free-fall as populations fall below fertility replacement levels.”

    I don’t believe in telling families how many children they can have, but in the use of birth control to allow couples and women the freedom to control their own lives in a more pragmatic way.

    I don’t know which planet you’re living on but we have no problems with replacement people, we’ll have 9.1 billion by 2050.   Please cite your sources because it appears to be a made-up piece of misinformation.

    Just saw this headline whilst checking that population estimate (which came from the BBC web site, like this one), and saw this ”
    Zambia’s population to triple by 2050″

  • GulliverUK

    I’m sure they say nice things about Catholicism too :-p

    Either way tens of millions of Christians of all denominations will vote Romney in November.  Perhaps they are …. ‘Political Christians’ !

  • Meena


    Nature has dictated that they are physically impossible”

    This is not so. In the very near future homosexual man and women will be able to have children who are TOTALLY their own.

  • Meena

    “It just cannot be.”
    Well, if that’s true (which it isn’t), you have nothing to worry about.

  • GFFM

    I’ll go one further Mr. Oddie. Legal unions between human beings and animals is coming. Cameron is really quite horrible. His superficiality is nauseating–he is like a character from a Waugh novel.

  • JabbaPapa

    Leviticus 18:22

    cum masculo non commisceberis coitu femineo quia abominatio est

    My quote is a literal translation of this.

    http://qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/leviticus/18.html

    literal translation :  18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

    (AKA no sorry NOT the revisionist “gay reader” version of the Bible with all references to homosexuality deliberately mistranslated for politically correct “reasons”)

    And :

    http://scripturetext.com/leviticus/18-22.htm

    (so really, you’re just talking >b-word< to suit your own prejudice)

  • Nicolas Bellord

    Are you implying that if Governments organised things properly there would be no problems such as hunger and therefore no need for charity (by which I mean love of neighbour) which is the driving force behind most charities?  I am afraid the problem is more profound – basically the selfishness of mankind which is one thing that religion endeavours to remedy.  The idea that Governments can resolve all problems is extremely dangerous.  Roger Scrutton on “The uses of pessissim” has much useful material on the subject.

  • Guest

    Come back when you actually understand something about Catholicism rather than the hatred you have sucked up on the Pink News website. You are a troll.

  • Guest

    Ah, here is where we differ. You believe humans should behave like animals.

    Cannibalism is observed in animals – should we be encouraging that as well?

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

    Fair enough! (Ross Divine, whilst it would doubtless an excellent name for a female impersonator, is a misreading of my stating that Ross (ie the Presbyterian minister you quoted) is using a ‘Divine Command Theory’ as a basis for his claims rather than the Catholic basis of natural law.)

    I appreciate it probably does all sound like the Judaean People’s Front etc to you -and I’ve some sympathy! But the important differences here between Catholics and (most) Protestants are: a) Catholics don’t think that the meaning of scripture is clearcut, and believes that it needs interpretation by the teaching authority of the Church; b) morality is not some arbitrary imposition by God, but is based upon what is good for our nature as human beings. Moreover, it is discernible, to a great extent, by human reason. (And even where that human reason has to be supplemented by revelation, that revelation is just more reasonable than we could have achieved under our own steam.)

    In the case of slavery, that means that, historically, the core of the debate in the Catholic Church has rested on Aristotle’s justification of natural slavery in Book I of the Politics rather than scripture. Bartolome de las Casas is a good place to start. (And of course like all human endeavours, it’s not always a pretty picture: but it does show the Church is genuinely trying to think through the demands of human nature rather than reverting simplistically to scripture.)

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

    Yes, you’re right to point out the dangers of my approach. I wasn’t suggesting that we should deviate from correct Catholic teaching on sex, but simply that, even if we couldn’t agree on much else, we could for starters agree that sex outside a ‘marriage-like’ partnership would be wrong. (Even if as Catholics, we’d then need to go on and say that not even all that sort of sex was right.)

    My aim was to flush out from the defenders of same sex ‘marriage’ that our disagreement with them isn’t simply about same sex/different sex: it’s also about the difference between a libertarian view of sex (where marriage is simply one variety of choice) and one which, as in Catholicism, sees marriage as the only right expression of sex. This ought rationally to make them drop the charge of homophobia: although it won’t of course!

    But you’re right to point out the danger of confusion about the correct Catholic view of sex.

  • GulliverUK

    Jabba, you’re widely off here.  Firstly, the Old Testament isn’t Christian, it belongs to the Hebrews, and in particular the holiness and priestly codes of Leviticus apply only to the Hebrews …. and if we did believe you it would not longer apply … because the New Covenant (New Testament) and Jesus’s death laid out the new rules.  If you believe in one law of the old you’d have to say why you aren’t following all, not eating pork, women not cutting their hair, women being covered in the temple, prohibition of working on a Sunday (in a secular capitalist world ?!), no divorce, no marrying someone from another faith, killing on non-virgins, etc.

    You won’t read this, but I’ll post the link anyway;
    http://home.earthlink.net/~ecorebbe/id18.html
    The Old Testament belongs to the Jewish people now, and is from their ancestors, for them, not some Christian sitting in SW1, and who best to understand it but Rabbis and biblical scholars no less.

    I seek only the truth.  I can do this because I don’t believe any of the texts myself and have no interest in following them from an ‘organised’ and dogmatic religious experience.  

    How you interpret them has had an affect on humanity, and if Jesus is who he was portrayed to be then anyone can clearly see “some” Christians have taken humanity far, far away from the original teachings and those understandings of Jesus’s intended meanings.

    The only reference Jesus made to people who are gay is “born Eunuchs”.  I’ll let you figure that out, but ask the BedKeeper.

    Remember, there is no real way to know what was really written because there are no original manuscripts — not a one, none, zilch, zippo.  The best that can be done is to take the manuscripts which are there, work backwards until we find the oldest copy, and then do as accurate an interpretation of the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek and then try to honestly understand what they were on about.

    If we do that, honestly, methodically, and without prejudice, we’ll arrive closer to the truth, whatever it may be.  In all of this you can never divorce the context and history of the time, and you cannot interpret scriptures without fully understanding the historical and cultural context — something you seem happy to do.

  • GulliverUK

    Cannibalism is harmful, being gay is not.  Demonising, hating people, denying them equal civil rights, purposefully and dogmatically attempting to treat them with unfavourably, having enmity towards them and attempting to change their nature is against the law of the Bible.
    The Torah stipulates 32 times that one shall not oppress the “stranger” that dwells among you. To deny any person, or group of persons, their civil rights was definitely a form of oppressive behaviour. 

    Catechism 2358 states; “… They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives …”

    Every sign of unjust discrimination.

  • GulliverUK

    You have a brand new account, called “Guest”, with just 2 posts, and you’re calling me a “troll” !!!   :D  I’m just debating belief and trying to put forward my understanding, to encourage others to set out their views and opinions.  If we can’t share those views together, and try to learn from each other, there’s little point in having a comments section.  

    Now more than ever we need to talk to each other, even if I feel like Daniel in the lion’s den, my head halfway in its mouth :-p

  • Meena

    The homosexuality-as-choice argument: Those who repeatedly make this claim are actually revealing something about their own sexuality: they are bisexual. Since human beings use a form of mental analogy whenever trying to understand another person’s behavior, the “choice” argument reflects the reasoning process of an individual who has experienced notable arousal to the same sex in addition to the opposite sex, but has chosen to act only on that inspired by the latter. A true heterosexual, by contrast, has never experienced meaningful same-sex desires and understands that one cannot choose to act on what is simply not there.

  • GulliverUK

    The idea that government aid is being poorly used was discussed just today on SML (BBC) .. or whatever it’s called.  It’s been the topic of discussion all over the place, for decades.  No, most of us don’t think governments overseas spend the aid money wisely and efficiently all the time.  That’s a majority view.  Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give aid, it just means all government spending should be robustly efficient – otherwise the poor are missing out.

    I think governments should be able to resolve most problems, and I think that’s what most people think, and hope for, and that’s why we have governments.  

    Just like other animals we enjoy positive mental stimulus and rewards from the feedback to things we do for others.  It might be that those selfless acts of kindness are in fact selfish desires for positive stimulus — but let’s hope there is something more to them than urges and self-centred needs.  I like the story of the Good Samaritan, and it can be found in all sorts of fables and tales throughout history, but in truth we can see it in animals all around us.  I think it’s written in to the DNA of many things.  If charitable work and giving help to others gives you a good feeling, then go for it.  It works for me.

  • JabbaPapa

    Same old, same old cherry-picking …

    OK, want something more recent ? (though it’ll say exactly the same thing of course, because the teaching on this question has not varied since the time of Moses)

    Catechism of the Catholic Church : 2357
    Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who
    experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons
    of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the
    centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains
    largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents
    homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”
    They are contrary to the natural law.
    They close the sexual act to the
    gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual
    complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

  • Guest

    Homosexual sexual activities are harmful.

  • Guest

    This Gulliver chap is clearly here to wind-up Catholics. If he is ignored he will go away.

  • GulliverUK

    The first five books of the Old Testament belong to the Hebrews (now called the Jewish people).  It’s their book and their interpretation which ultimately counts.  Most Christians don’t go near the Old Testament, any of it, but concentrate on the New Testament, because it is the New Covenant.

    The Catechisms only apply to Catholics and are intended to be a summary of Catholic ideology.  Now, tell me, when was the Old Testament written?  1400 BC to 500 BC?  And when were the Catechisms written … something like 1450 AD, with most of the new parts added within the last 100 years or so ?

    You’ve dodged the point – they are there to guide you in how you behave as a Catholic, not to judge anyone else – they don’t apply to anyone else, and the fact is a small minority of loud-mouthed individuals and leaders are not following 2358.  Their behaviour is not only upsetting to the majority of Catholics (from poll data) but lone of the reasons for the emptying of churches and the move of some Catholics to non-religion or other denominations. If these people persist there will be little left of the Catholic church in the future.  The charge of coming across as an uncaring, dogmatic, socially conservative, bigoted (unwillingness to listen to others respectfully), and homophobic church is made.  You’re definitely a church which is more Old Testament than New.  Whilst others would no doubt like to see the Catholic machine utterly destroyed, I’d simply like to see more caring, acceptance of difference, tolerance, reasoning, good deeds, Good Samaritan, kind and loving ideals promoted above what some will label fundamentalist dogma.  I want to see the whole thing turned on it’s head and used as a force for the common good.  And I don’t even need to be a Catholic to recognise that is what the majority of, Western, anyway, Catholics believe.  Take it this way, some of you would make lousy doctors, because the first rule of a doctors oath is to do no harm.

  • Sentili Adaman

    What an exciting thread.  It does seem to demonstrate most securely the fact well commented on by Isaiah berlin.  We do live an an age where incommensurable paradigms and irreconcilable epistemologies prevail.  A time and place where there are no common aims and ultimate purposes!  Ernest Gellner described the ‘unintended gift’ of capitalism: the liberal and pluralist polity.  And this is where we live. What pluralism!  Berlin was a little bit harsh on those with their ‘dire metaphysical need’.  I quote “To allow such a need to determine one’s practice is a symptom of an equally deep, and more dangerous, moral and political immaturity.”  He may perhaps have gone too far here but nonetheless he does underscore the query: what to do – what do we do – within the polity when there are such divergent and mutually antagonistic and quite irreconcilable positions?

    It seems to be a sine qua non these days that there is not going to be enshrined in the laws of the land any specifically religious understanding of the human condition.  Those whose faith would impel them to a procrustean raging against that pluralism (Gellner and Berlin) which they may feel so undermines their convictions, can do little but gag and regurgitate, splutter and fume.   The good Catholic can only fall back on the moral teachings of the church.  Recourse to some other, universal law or natural claims must surely take second place to revealed morality.  Recourse, then, to some imagined natural condition prior to religious revelation is simply not on.  Revelation enjoys supremacy in the matter for I am quite sure that an anthropology of human nature across time and place will no doubt throw up a variety of arrangements not all of which would be convenient to churches with missionary endeavours.

    It is no man’s business that another be religious – so said Mill; and it is no man’s business that one man’s religious understanding of the human condition should have a place in the secular law binding on others.

    Oh, what a difficult but exciting world!

  • GFFM

     Ick!!

  • Jonathan West

    To whom?

  • JabbaPapa

    No, he has an addiction to threads about gays and religion.

  • theroadmaster

     The general pattern is demographic decline in countries across both the developed and developing world.  Experts reckon that the world’s population will peak around 8-9 billion in the middle of the century and then start to fall back.  Humanity has the necessary scientific knowledge and technical expertise to handle ta global population of that size.  The population is not over-population but bad management of natural resources and other such circumstances such as unfavorable weather conditions.

     Widespread birth control has ended in demographic death for countries in Europe and has caused them to look beyond their borders for emigrant labor to make up for the shortfall in young people coming into the employment markets.  As populations get grayer, national social welfare bills will escalate to unsustainable levels in coming decades.  Also where birth control is the default position, abortion is never far behind.

    Check this site out and it may explode a lot of the myths that you are expounding-

    http://overpopulationisamyth.com/ 
    http://www.lifenews.com/2005/06/02/nat-1361/ 

  • JabbaPapa

    Yes, she *does* tend to bring that out in people …

  • theroadmaster

    Some psycho-sexual experts believe that homosexuality can arise due to a number of reasons, but no-one has discovered a “gay” gene to explain it. Reasons range from a lack of a father-figure during childhood to hormonal influences.  Adolescence is a time that teenagers experiment in terms of their sexuality and confusion can result, which can extend into later life.  Expert counselling can help to resolve a lot of difficulties in that regard.

  • theroadmaster

    I mean’t that ”
    The problem is not over-population but bad management of natural resources and other such circumstances such as unfavorable weather conditions” rather than ”
    The population is not over-population but bad management of natural resources and other such circumstances such as unfavorable weather conditions.”

  • JabbaPapa

    The first five books of the Old Testament belong to the Hebrews (now
    called the Jewish people).  It’s their book and their interpretation
    which ultimately counts.

    This is ridiculous, not to mention hypocritical.

    I suppose your own interpretations count for nothing then ?

    So I’ll just ignore everything you say ?

    You’re trying to use a get out of jail free card because you’ve been proven wrong in your assertion that so-called “loving same-sex acts” are not condemned.

    “It’s their book and their interpretation
    which ultimately counts” — what a load of twaddle !!!

    In the gay activist liberal relativist manner of your modernism, you simply do NOT want to hear the facts that there is a binding and non-optional religious teaching that these acts are inherently wrongful.

    If you want to discuss Jewish opinions on these matters, why not go to a Jewish website ?

    But you’re going to get exactly *nowhere* if you start claiming that the Old Testament, which is BTW a purely Christian Book, given that the Jews use a completely different canon, is somehow out of bounds to Catholics.

    Most Christians don’t go near the Old
    Testament, any of it, but concentrate on the New Testament, because it
    is the New Covenant.

    This is just plain old rubbish — every single Mass has at least one reading from the Old Testament.

    You’ve dodged the point – they are there to guide you in how you behave
    as a Catholic, not to judge anyone else – they don’t apply to anyone
    else

    No, I haven’t, I’ve responded to your lecturing on what both Scripture and the Catholic Faith teach or don’t teach in your personal opinion.

    *You* are trying to dodge the point that your personal understanding of both of these things is erroneous.

    Their behaviour is not only upsetting to the majority of Catholics (from
    poll data) but one of the reasons for the emptying of churches and the
    move of some Catholics to non-religion or other denominations. If these
    people persist there will be little left of the Catholic church in the
    future.  The charge of coming across as an uncaring, dogmatic, socially
    conservative, bigoted (unwillingness to listen to others respectfully),
    and homophobic church is made.  You’re definitely a church which is more
    Old Testament than New.  Whilst others would no doubt like to see the
    Catholic machine utterly destroyed, I’d simply like to see more caring,
    acceptance of difference, tolerance, reasoning, good deeds, Good
    Samaritan, kind and loving ideals promoted above what some will label
    fundamentalist dogma.  I want to see the whole thing turned on it’s head
    and used as a force for the common good.  And I don’t even need to be a
    Catholic to recognise that is what the majority of, Western, anyway,
    believe.  Take it this way, some of you would make lousy doctors,
    because the first rule of a doctors oath is to do no harm.

    This is just rubbish of your own imagination.

    You cleave to the paranoid fantasy that being opposed to the destruction of the traditional definition of marriage is somehow “homophobic”.

    This is because your views have been twisted and distorted by propaganda.

    And I very much doubt that you even understand the Catholic doctrines of sin in the first place, so that you do not know the limits and nature of this condemnbation of gay sex acts.

  • GulliverUK

    As I said, the first five books belong to the Hebrews, they were written for the Hebrews in the place they were in, for that time.  Most Jews do not follow these teachings of in fact believe, most of Israel is secular, by run a theocracy of sorts.  These first five books, which they call the Torah are supposed to be the word of God, whilst nothing else is, even if some would claim the other texts were “inspired” by Him.

    Christians didn’t exist when the Torah was written, perhaps as early as 1400 BC, so you can’t come along later and claim it as your own, but you could claim it led to and was instrumental in Christian beliefs.  But when it comes to interpretation, only the Jewish scholars would properly understand the texts and the context of the cultural history.  I gave links to Rabbinical scholars who clearly disagree with your ‘Christian’ interpretation of the texts.  I’m saying they, the Hebrews, now the Jews, are best placed to understand what the texts actually mean.

  • GulliverUK

    You can’t change sexual orientation, it’s innate, even Exodus has given up, even the Catechisms say so.  What sort of Catholics are you?

    Counselling only disappoints, causes depression and can lead to suicide.

  • GulliverUK

    I don’t have a problem with the population growing, I have exactly the same problem you have, a belief that governments (management) is not up to properly ensuring fair distribution to those in need, and poor management of the environment isn’t helping.

    If you look at land-mass, we have enough land-mass across the world to double or triple the population, but they all need clean water, food, jobs, housing, transport, etc.  That’s where the problem lies.  I support the use of contraception  particularly in Africa, because we’re not addressing the issue, child mortality.  We should sort that out.  Currently some women are having too many children because they’re actually putting their own health at risk — most women cannot continually pump out children without doing themselves physical damage.

    We have to have a more pragmatic approach to pregnancy.  Firstly the world needs to sort out the low life expectancy, and sort out a welfare system for Africa, as has been so successful in the West.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GVZLEPV6I5SNCNNJIS4JZ32WQY Jacques

    Polygamy, incest, bestiality. You are forgetting paedophilia.

  • JabbaPapa

    To homosexuals, and to society at large.

  • JabbaPapa

    You can’t change sexual orientation, it’s innate

    It never ceases to amaze me how the gay lobby’s narrative is now saying the exact 180° opposite of what they used to say — there’s not a whisker of consistency in their story, it’s just the “official gay truth” shifts and changes according to whichever temporary convenience.

    In fact, some people can’t change their sexual orientation, whilst others can, and do.

    And NO not just bisexuals, if you want to start on that story.

    Also, sex is not an obligation.

  • andy

     Who precisely are “we”? Spoken like the culturally marxist bigot you actually are. The real hate merchants are stupid pompous prigs like you and your fellow lefties that can’t wait to attach a “phobia” onto someone whose views contrast your own. Oppose Islamic supremacism – oh, Islamophobe! Support traditional marriage – oh Homophobe! No doubt one day you’ll be trying to certify a belief in mainstream Christianity as some kind of personality disorder (though those are mostly not treatable of course). As a matter of human rights, if an individual wants therapy to try and change his/her sexual orientation, what the bloody hell has it got to do with you? Some people have multiple boob jobs – not my choice but their choice. And as for your last paragraph Chairman Mao, read some real history, understand where the word cleric comes from, and most of all, grow up.

  • JabbaPapa

    bla bla bla, just repeating the same arguments that I’ve already disagreed with is pointless and a waste of space.

  • andy

     I can say quite clearly that there is no historical precedent for gay marriage in the Judaeo, Christian or Islamic traditions going back over 2000 years. None at all. So why the bloody hell do you think you’re entitled to claim this tradition for yourselves, when civil partnerships give you all the legal rights that married people have?

  • GulliverUK

    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.

    The scientific and other evidence from those in the business is quite clear that therapy doesn’t work, and pretending it does just causes a great deal of harm.  The truth is … these Christian fundamentalist don’t care about the harm they cause, and from my understanding of the message of Jesus clearly aren’t actually Christians, they’ve just deluded themselves that they are.

  • GulliverUK

    You need to take a good look in the mirror sometime and ask who is the danger to society.

  • andy

     And by the way, as for your infantile comment about the Catholic Church wanting to “hurt” people like you (poor diddums) the Catholic Church is actually the largest humanitarian provider on the planet. What do you do for mankind and the greater good, apart from indulge in somewhat the pathetic self absorption you demonstrate in your writing?

  • GulliverUK

    I don’t think anyone is interested in your point of view because it’s all negative.  It’s not debate, it’s just berating others and trying to demonise people.   It’s bullying, and it’s shameful.

  • GulliverUK

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