Fri 24th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Thu 23rd Oct 2014 at 16:14pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

The push for marriage ‘equality’ is leading to less tolerance, not more

‘Hate crimes’ are being investigated on all sides

By on Friday, 28 September 2012

Campaigners in Maryland before a state vote on marriage (Photo: PA)

Campaigners in Maryland before a state vote on marriage (Photo: PA)

Reading posts in response to Herald blogs on the subject of changing the law on marriage so that it is no longer defined as being between a man and a woman – as David Cameron has pledged to do by 2015 – I have been struck by the way supporters of this change brush aside the fears of those who oppose altering the law. The latter fear that if, in the future, they defend traditional marriage in public – in classrooms, meetings and so on – they will be in breach of the law. As the law has not – yet – changed we cannot know for certain if these fears are mere hysteria or legitimate, but there are precedents for anxiety over the matter.

Christian Voice has drawn my attention to a story told by journalist Mark Steyn, about the absurd situations that can arise in “hate crime” legislation. Steyn writes, “…the very same words can be proof of two entirely different hate crimes. Iqbal Sacranie is a Muslim of such exemplary ‘moderation’ he’s been knighted by the Queen. The head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal was interviewed by the BBC and expressed the view that homosexuality was ‘immoral’, was ‘not acceptable’, ‘spreads disease’ and ‘damaged the very foundations of society’. A gay group complained and Sir Iqbal was investigated by Scotland Yard’s ‘community safety unit’ for ‘hate crimes’ and ‘homophobia’.

“Independently but simultaneously, the magazine of GALHA (the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association) called Islam a ‘barmy doctrine’ growing ‘like a canker’ and deeply ‘homophobic’. In return, the London Race Hate Crime Forum asked Scotland Yard to investigate GAHLA for “Islamophobia”. Got that? If a Muslim says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, Scotland Yard will investigate him for homophobia; but if a gay says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, Scotland Yard will investigate him for Islamophobia. Two men say exactly the same thing and they’re investigated for different hate crimes.”

This would be laughable if it were not so serious. Christian Voice adds other examples of heavy-handed and inappropriate state interference, such as that involving a 14-year-old girl, Codie Stott, who “asked her teacher at Harrop Fold High School whether she could sit with another group to do her science project as in hers the other five pupils spoke Urdu and she didn’t understand what they were saying. The teacher called the police, who took her to the station, photographed her, fingerprinted her, took DNA samples, removed her jewellery and shoelaces, put her in a cell for three and a half hours, and questioned her on suspicion of committing a Section Five “racial public-order offence”. “An allegation of a serious nature was made concerning a racially motivated remark,” declared the headmaster, Antony Edkins. The school would “not stand for racism in any form”. In a statement, Greater Manchester Police said they took “hate crime” very seriously and their treatment of Miss Stott was in line with “normal procedure”.

MercatorNet draws attention to another potential minefield: mothers and fathers will officially cease to exist in France if draft gay marriage legislation promoted by the new socialist government goes ahead. Instead, all references to “mothers and fathers” in the nation’s civil code will be exchanged for the non-gender-specific “parents”. The draft law, due to go before President Hollande’s cabinet for approval on October 31, states that “marriage is a union of two people, of different or the same gender”.

The problem is that trying to promote a false equality does not lead to peaceful coexistence or greater tolerance but to their opposite. Progressives who want to change the nature of the marriage laws in order to give same-sex unions the status of marriage are very intolerant of those they see as deeply prejudiced for wanting to retain the status quo; those seeking to keep the status quo are intolerant of what they see as misguided and illiberal attempts to undermine the foundations of a healthily functioning society. Accusations of “hate crimes” will abound and increase; the stage is set for a long war of attrition.

  • scary goat

    It seems to me that “rights” have become a problem.  Everyone these days is obsessed with MY rights.  Of course we should all have general human rights (the dignity of every human life) but the problem with all these differing group rights is what happens when they clash?  My rights trump your rights? Or do they? Whose rights trump whose?  Who is more important than whom? It seems to me that it is all becoming very selfish, individually or group.  Somewhere along the line we seem to have stopped thinking about MY responsibilities.  And where has common sense gone?  And why has an aggressive stance become the norm? Yes, of course, all these “rights” will lead to intolerance.

  • Timt-robertson

    Is not the fundamental issue that needs to be addressed: in what does true equality between human beings consist, is there in fact such a thing, and how is it differentiated from false equality  ?  As a practising Christian, I believe that all human beings are equal in the sight of God, since every single person is made in His image and likeness (Gen 1: 27).

  • NewMeena

    You exaggerate grossly and distort the facts.

    The “two men” did not say “exactly the same thing”.   
    One used the expression: a”‘barmy doctrine’ growing ‘like a canker’”, for example.

    There are stupid people in all walks of life, and this includes the schools and the police.
    When stupid decisions are made, the system will often attempt to “back it up”, from solidarity and fear of (deserved) ridicule.
    Further: anomalies exist as a consequence of many laws and regulations. 
    You exploit stupidity and anomaly to make your point.

    So far as tolerance is concerned, the tolerance of many Catholics is well-expressed on the CH website, for anyone to see.

  • awkwardcustomer

     

    It’s the new Totalitarianism, creeping in under the cover of
    Equal Rights legislation and pretending to be ‘tolerant’.  The very term ‘hate speech’ should set alarm
    bells ringing.  The dismantling of the family
    has long been the goal of Marxism, as has the destruction of religion.  Both these
    institutions act as a bulwark against the state and must be done away
    with. The nation state is also an
    obstacle to the New Totalitarianism, which is essentially International
    and Global in its outlook.

    Those who support this process will, of course, deny point
    blank that this is happening, since they rely on stealth and the misuse of
    language to achieve their ends.  Francis
    Phillips might be surprised by the way that supporters of Gay ‘marriage’ brush
    aside the concerns of those who oppose it. 
    I am not.  As someone who was
    brought up a Marxist household and who once subscribed to all the views associated with
    that philosophy, I have experienced and witnessed the almost visceral hatred
    that these people feel for the enemies of the Revolution, for the reactionaries
    and for the religious. 

    The fact that the Tory party, no longer Conservative, is going along with this process indicates the extent to which the ‘culture wars’ have been won by the Marxists, who have been intent on demoralising the West since the 1930s by relentlessly attacking and undermining the West’s institutions and Traditions. Antonio Gramsci described this process as ‘the long march through the institutions’ in his ‘Prison Notebooks’, also from the 1930s.  Things can only get worse.

  • Andrew

    The arguments are not so complex as they are often portrayed – supposed complexity is often employed, stragically, to create obfuscation as a method to prolong paralysis, stasis and debate, all in the interests of those who are against a particular form of change or progress.

    What we have here with Islam and in the Catholic Church herself is nothing more than a clash between Medievalism and Modernity, between Intellection and Incoherence, between reductive understandings of the union of persons and understandings which portray certain types of unions as wrong, because the persons concerned have the same genitalia and not different ones.  That is, genderization.
     
    Appeals to the nature of marriage as a state to enable procreation fall utterly flat since the Church approves the marriage of elderly straight couples and the marriage of younger ones where one or both are biologically infertile.  Moreover, any Catholic (i.e. most) who practises contraception or who has had surgery to abolish creative potential (hysterectomy, tubal ligation, vasectomy, etc) had better examine their consciences very well indeed before they condemn gay couples who wish to commit themselves in civil marriage.  And if all this were not enough, the equal marriage proposals are restricted to civil marriage, just like straight civil marriages – these acts as acts of the State, they are absolutely no business of the Church.
     
    Oh, and ‘complimentarity of the sexes’ which could be used in the case of old or young infertile marriages?  Forget it.  I know 10 times the number of gay couples that get on perfectly than I see with increasingly divorcing straights.  Complimentarity comes right down to a person’s personality, not to what external and internal genitalia you have.  Oh and ‘the natural order’.  That is a term given to what the Earth did to us and how it made us sort of behave before we gained the knowledge (from God) to govern it increasingly in accordance with better and better human stewardship.  If any Catholic thinks that “Go forth and multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it” is a command for unregulated fertility and procreation, they need to think again and reflect on the meaning of the words ‘fill’ and ‘subdue’.  Contraception and homosexuality both act to obey God’s commandment to subdue, they do not work against it.  And as for participating in the work of creation of God – this doesn’t not equate in philosophical terms to making your wife a baby factory.  On the contrary, one can create via arts, music, architecture, poetry, literature, medicine and healthcare - etc etc. 

    If only such arguments and observations were reflected upon with a little more objectivity, we would settle the conflicts we are currently experiencing much more quickly and with less violence and damage, since we would be treating them with reason and not with emotion or ideas such as ‘well, it’s always been like this, hasn’t it?

  • paulpriest

    The Same-Sex marriage ‘debate’ is no such thing…nor is it about a redefinition of marriage.

    This is a campaign for the abolition of marriage and the enforcement of all presently-married couples to be downgraded to civil partners…

    Legally as well as doctrinally marriage doesn’t exist until consummation [or sanation at death]

    …and homosexuals don’t engage in activities which can be legally termed as ‘consummating acts’ [and realise it would be ludicrous and futile to even attempt to construct a sexual criteria]

    Therefore lovemaking has to be removed from the very definition of marriage itself.

    Hence – in the name of equality – everyone is going to be forced to be in civil partnerships.
    Marriages will cease to exist.
    Civil partnerships will simply be renamed as ‘marriage’

    So this isn’t anything about ‘rights for homosexuals’ – it’s about the removal of the rights of married couples to be married…they must become civil partners and be ‘equalised’ into conformity.

    Simple really…so why aren’t  Catholic commentators and ‘defenders of marriage’ saying this?
    Is it too culturally insensitive?

    Is that why our media-representatives are misrepresenting the very nature of marriage on news programmes and public debates etc?

    Saying the Purpose of Marriage is ‘to have and raise children’ when that’s not the purpose of marriage – the purpose is a loving physical and spiritual union – the aim/end is for that love to overflow into children [hence infertile couples fulfil marriage's purpose but are unable to naturally attain the end  - whereas for homosexual couples fulfilling the purpose is intrinsically impossible - they can't consummate their love!]

    …and certainly we can appeal to the benefit of marriage to society and the raising of children – but we are expressly forbidden from using these society improving arguments  as utilitarian justification to say same-sex couples cannot get married.
    It’s gravely immoral to say the status quo benefits me so irrespective of something’s rightness or wrongness – they can’t have it! That’s anti-abolitionist rhetoric!

    We are losing the public fight for marriage – and why?
    Because marriage’s so-called public defenders don’t know what marriage is, don’t understand what the Church teaching is [and even if they do they won't use it because this is a 'secular issue',] and as with virtually every other moral issue in the public arena over the past few years – have repeatedly proven they are ill-informed, inexperienced and ultimately bloody useless!

  • NewMeena

    All law brings its own complex questions (and a good living for those who trade in them).
    The laws relating to human rights is no different. 

  • paulpriest

     Why are you here?
    [and that wasn't a metaphysical question]

  • NewMeena

    “is there in fact such a thing”.

    The above question and the others you pose are excellent ones.

    But the equal rights and equality, about which we talking here, are those defined by the law – European and national. The philosophy of jurisprudence need not concern us.

  • NewMeena

    “Therefore lovemaking has to be removed from the very definition of marriage itself.”

    But only if, by “lovemaking”, you mean copulation or coitus.

  • paulpriest

     It’s got nothing to do with my definition – it’s the legal definition….

    …and when you can provide me with an inclusive descriptive single-sentence definition of same-sex marriage consummation…

    …then you’d better let the LGBT brigade know – because they can’t find one – therefore they have to throw out the very notion and rather than demanding same-sex marriage – they’re demanding the abolition of marriage and heterosexual civil partnerships

  • JabbaPapa

    Brilliant article !!!!

  • JabbaPapa

    There are stupid people in all walks of life

    Your own mirror could tell you so much, Meeny !!!

  • JabbaPapa

    Meanwhile, you imagine that the repeated expression of your own religious hatred for Catholicism is all fine and dandy …

    Cripes you’re a bore !!!!!

  • JabbaPapa

    I wish she weren’t.

    [and that isn't a metaphysical declaration]

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    The homosexualist militants are not called the Gaystapo for no reason.
    As soon as they get the laws they want, they will start to censor and burn books with much gusto.

  • scary goat

     Oh no!!!! You mean all this time I’ve been “genderized”? Is this a human rights issue?  Can I claim compensation? I’m off….to claim my rights.

  • awkwardcustomer

    I’m convinced that NewMeena, Meena and Judithjmidwinter (remember her) are all the same person.  They certainly sound the same. 

  • NewMeena

    I did not say it was your definition.

    But I note that by “lovemaking” you DO mean copulation or coitus.

    Leaving the present (and only the present) legal definition aside, you should acknowledge that there is more to lovemaking than copulation or coitus.

  • NewMeena

    Because I buy the Daily (& Sunday) Torygraph, have had letters published in them and comment on their website.
    I also have quite a lot of money and am a member of the upper middle class or lower upper class.
    Am I not well-qualified to be here?
    Perhaps not – because I am a Socialist.

    Bye the bye JP, although I don’t intend to reply to all your silly abuse (always counterproductive), I have to say that I do not hate Catholicism. The Catholic Church has virtues. But what I do despise are the conservative (small “c” and large “C”) right-wing – some clearly Fascist in their beliefs, whether they know it or not – Catholics, whose numbers AGAIN are growing in the Church, in Europe and in North America.

    This has nothing to do with Jesus’ teachings – but rather with the current (and future) economic situation, which is seen as an opportunity, by the above- mentioned, for political advancement.

      

  • scary goat

     I was thinking about an intelligent reply to this…..but I think on this occasion I will resort to a Jabba-ism:

    You really haven’t got the foggiest clue.

  • scary goat

     ps.  Sorry Jabba, I just re-read what I wrote and realised it could be taken the wrong way.  I know you are very capable of intelligent posts….I just meant I usually try to refrain from getting frustrated….but on this occasion…….

  • JabbaPapa

    No offense AT ALL — because, well, she really hasn’t the foggiest, has she ?

  • Andrew

    Well, yes, in many ways.  A characterisation of the whole individual which relies on the parts that are the external and internal genitalia is by definition reductive in its nature.  You might say: ‘I am a man’, or ‘I am a woman’ – when talking in terms of gender that will be true, but the statement is predicated absolutely on gender as described by genitalia.  Better to say I am a human person of the male or female gender, than to put the cart before the horse.  In Christ there is neither male nor female and our souls do not have gender.  If someone attempts to discriminate against you, as a person, specifically on account of your gender, then yes of course you will be able to calim compensation against such a form of discrimination which is not lawful (anymore).  And yes, you do have the ‘rights’ to do so.

  • Andrew

    I prefer the understanding that argues that this is not a re-definition, but rather a clarification aimed at human progress.  Not that re-definition is a bad thing when it aims at correcting something on the basis of new evidence.  Not to do so would be to want to keep human beings in a state of ignorance as to the need to revise understanding based on new evidence, which cannot be right.  To re-define, therefore, is morally neutral, unless it is employed in the deliberately pejorative manner in which you attempt to do in your post.

    There is no campaign for the abolition of marriage – such possibilities have never ever been described.  Rather, this whole debate is about the extension of the secular married state to all human persons, and away from the restriction of the secular married state to those human persons who share different gentialia rather than the same ones.

    As for consummation, it is incontrovertibly a physical act meant to endorse the marriage vow and initiate the relationship in intimate terms.  This can be achieved physically and mechnically by male homosexuals and indeed female ones.  The British Law, for example, does not say that consummation is only legally valid when open to procreation.  Indeed, where a condom is in place in the case of heterosexual people is not at all an issue and the Church has no problem in seeing consummation as an entirely physical act in older people beyond the reproductive age and in younger people where one or both is infertile.  It is, therefore, a physical act which can be achieved mechanistically as easily by homosexual persons as for heterosexual ones.  As for the ideal that this mechanistic physical act is an expression of spiritual love, you are on thin ice if you assert that human persons of the same gender are utterly incapacble of such things and that only heterosexual people are.  That would be to diminish the personhood of the two males or two females which the Church has never ever attempted to do and would seek to make them sub-human, in some way radically inderior to heterosexuals.  This would be a terrible thing to do in God’s sight, because it seeks to dispute what God Himself has said and done and would try to render to the state of an animal people who form part of God’s creation and His Church.

    There has been a falling off of mainstream Catholic objections to equal civil marriage and to homosexual lifestyle as a function of human progress and the embrace of authentic advances in understanding, where Modernity seeks to educate Medievalism.  It is, in fact, inexorable that knowledge will temper ignorance and irrational fear, that is what knowledge does by its nature (apart from in animals in the main).

  • scary goat

     Ok, well you’ve given me one good idea.  I will adopt the term HPFG (human person female gender) to describe my position. I have always been a bit stuck for a suitable term as I reject “feminism” as damaging to females (and males) but fully support the idea that women are due respect in their natural role.  (as are men due respect in their natural roles of course).

    You mention “In Christ there is neither male nor female” and our souls do not have gender.  I think also Jesus said there is no marriage in Heaven. The soul is different from physical realities in this world.  I think you are taking the quote out of context to try to make a point.

    I would also see myself as “gendered” not “genderized”.  God or nature gendered me.  I don’t feel that it is irrelevant or some sort of mistake or that I have somehow been diddled out of my  human personhood.  I am HPFG and proud of who I am, because that’s how God created me.  I am not genderless and it was not people who “genderized” me. And my gender is not simply a matter of genitalia…it’s also hard-wired into my relevant emotions and nature as the child bearer.  I am really not quite sure why some people use the term “baby machines” as if it’s an insult.  I don’t understand what all the defying nature is about either. 

    Your first sentence says “arguments are often not so complex as they are portrayed…..” indeed!  I agree with you on that.  But I don’t think it’s the people who want to maintain the status quo who are the ones complicating things and obfuscating.

    “Genderised” ???????

  • Andrew
  • paulpriest

     Andrew I’m sorry but you are not getting this…

    The Government’s legal advisors and the country’s top legal experts have conceded that
    in order for homosexuals to
    ‘get married’…

    a] marriage is going to have to be abolished
    b] all those presently married are going to be legally downgraded to civil partnerships
    c] then civil partnerships will be rebranded as marriage

    There’s no other way of doing it!

    As for consummation I’m sorry but ‘physically and mechanically’ possible?
    It isn’t…

  • Kevin

     those seeking to keep the status quo are intolerant of what they see as misguided and illiberal attempts to undermine the foundations of a healthily functioning society

    What is wrong with being intolerant of that? The issue here is the concept of hate crime, which is tantamount to thought crime. It is an attempt to judge a person’s soul where the secular law should only be concerned with judging a person’s intention to commit an objective wrong. Buggery would be an example of an objective wrong. Expressing an opinion about what is or is not wrong is not evidence of a person’s intentions.

  • JabbaPapa

    This gender theory has been formally condemned by the Catholic Church as being inherently contrafactual.

  • JabbaPapa

    You shouldn’t let yourself be manipulated by these notions, which are inherently incompatible with Catholicism.

    We have a sexual identity, not a “gender”.

    A gender is a feature of vocabulary, not people.

  • scary goat

     Oh ok :-s. I didn’t know that.  I thought it meant the same thing.  I was objecting to the idea that I (or anyone) has been “genderized” by some faceless evil.  I thought it was simple….I thought God made me a female human being. 

  • http://twitter.com/sitsio Mark Lambert

    Paul, even though you are right—and I particularly like the beautiful way you explain that the true love between a married couple’s love ‘overflows’ into children—I am still unsure how you expect this argument to be practically effective in our broadly secular/ atheistic society? Surely our understanding of Sacramental Marriage, its meaning, and what constitutes such, is already so far removed from what mainstream society considers ‘marriage’ the proposed equalisation of the institution is not even going to be on most people’s radar is it? And for those of us who have a Sacramental understanding of marriage, we’re not going to worry about what secular society calls it, as long as we have fulfilled the criteria of our faith in making our relationship sacred before God. Please don’t get me wrong, I’m just trying to properly understand the argument in order to be better able to communicate it to others.

  • Ghengis

    The abolition of marriage is a futile attempt at population control which has gone wrong due to single parenting continuing the population growth anyways, just without the proper family structure. To end this madness, people must understand the Marxist and Malthusian roots of the Left’s arguments; then conservatives must debunk them every chance they get.

  • paulpriest

    Mark it’s quite simple:
    We tell the public:
    “Look : Same sex couples already have civil partnerships – BUT in the name of equality they demand that everyone who is married has their marriage abolished by law – redesignated as a civil partnership – THEN when there is a universal civil partnership this will be called ‘marriage’ – even though it will have nothing to do with the previous legal definition of it,,,”

    It’s not about same-sex couples gaining marriage – it’s about everyone who is married being forced to become civil partners…

    Don’t you think that’s a bit better an argument than the one our crowd are presently drowning – and losing – in?

  • JabbaPapa

    It’s OK, this “gender” propaganda is so widespread that it’s completely inescapable.

    It’s the main weapon in the arsenal to destroy sexual morality and traditional marriage in their entirety.

    And never mind that even the vast majority of homosexuals don’t have any so-called “gender” issues, which (apart from some very few people who are genetically intersexed as a mutation), involves about one person in 10,000 …

  • Andrew

    Dear Paul

    At no time has the Government ‘conceded’ that heterosexual civil marriage is to be abolished and that all currently married people are to be made civil partners.  This is alarmist error.  The Government has made clear that the state of civil marriage (current restricted to heterosexual persons) is to be extended to persons of the same sex.  Extension is not abolition. The Government proposes as advancement in inclusivity and fairness.  It is a curious interpretation that sees extension for fairness as abolition!  Perhaps, for the blog contributors and readers, you might paste the link to the official Government sites which state that marriage is to be abolished as part of the process?

    As for consummation.  I’m afraid that the response ‘it isn’t’ (yours, above) doesn’t constitute an argument against my conclusion.  Consummation is a sexual act and it is achieved via a physicality which is mechanistic by its nature.  The mechanism being penetration of one part of the body by another. This mechanistic act of entrance into the other person may or may not involve a spiritual dimension.  Many marriages of convenience and nobility in the past and in the present were/are physically and thus legally consummated without a shred of spirituality.  Naturally, to include the spiritual dimension is to make the act holy as a form of giving rather than just taking.  Homosexual persons are as physically able to achieve the physical penetration as are heterosexual persons.  If you think not, then there are any number of websites which will demonstrate, unequivocally, the same (!)  As with heterosexual persons, the physical act can be performed with or without an element of spirituality.  But to suggest that only heterosexual persons are capable of a spiritual dimension as part of the physical act of consummation is ipso facto to state that homosexual persons are subhuman in this specific context.  This would be a terrible thing to do and an insult to God Himself Who has made them fully human.  It would be to describe what is therefore good as in some way less good or evil which risks sin against the Holy Ghost.

    To address some of the points about ‘love making’.  I think we need to be clear that it is as possible to engage in lovemaking over a cosy dinner in together of an evening holding hands and looking into each other’s eyes, for example, as it is to do the same during the physical act of copulation.  Indeed, there are so many opportunities to make love in between these two extremes.

    For the reasons given above I look forward to 2013 when France will join Portugal and all of the Nordic Countries, etc., in legislating for equal marriage as part of human progress based on a recognition of the personhoods of people and not to see marriage as a state restricted to the genital expression between people with different genitalia.  Likewsie the UK in 2015.  We will certainly see equal marriage neacted in 2015 – it is not as if Cameron is alone in his policy, the policy is massively supported by both Labour and the Lib Dems and the Greens.  So the Parliamentary majority in the Lower House will be not a simple win by a couple of votes, but a landslide ‘yes.  Of course, we will see issues raised by their Lordships, but no way will they be able to withstand a Commons majority of that size.  And if they do, well, we simply use the Parliament Act as we did before to force through legislation aimed at equality, fairness and justice.

    The violent objection of the Catholic Church to equal civil partnership is costing it very dearly among the very young people that it eeds to fill the pews in Europe and the USA if it is not to see a worsening of the collapse of the Faith in Europe and North America that we currently see.  And let us be clear, that is where the money comes from to keep the marble corridors of the Vatican in place.  The Church needs radically to re-evaluate its position on human sexuality as a whole, including the nonsense of priestly celibacy.

      

  • Hermit

    Marriage is ONLY between one man and one woman. Two men or two women make ONLY a farce.

    God came out with his loving plan of marriage between one man and one woman. Christ words are there for all of us to follow. This plan is one of love for the benefit of all.

    The devil came out with another plan: a false marriage between two men or two women. He intends this to the detriment of all and in such a false marriage he substituted lust for love.

    It up to us which one to follow; we shall reap the good or bad fruits of the one we choose.

  • JabbaPapa

    At no time has the Government ‘conceded’ that heterosexual civil
    marriage is to be abolished and that all currently married people are to
    be made civil partners.

    At what point do you think that the government start to be honest that its propaganda is, in fact, propaganda ?

    This is alarmist error

    It’s cold reality.

    Extension is not abolition

    The redefinition of X to mean X plus -X results in X being abolished in favour of non-X.

    The Government proposes as advancement in inclusivity and fairness

    The government proposes the destruction of one of the very bases of religious and social identity.

    The mechanism being penetration of one part of the body by another

    That will make all of your lesbian friends happy, won’t it…

    Also, by that logic, if person A pokes his finger into person B’s eye socket, would that be “consummation” ?

    To address some of the points about ‘love making’.  I think we need to
    be clear that it is as possible to engage in lovemaking over a cosy
    dinner in together of an evening holding hands and looking into each
    other’s eyes, for example, as it is to do the same during the physical
    act of copulation.  Indeed, there are so many opportunities to make love
    in between these two extremes.

    Except that marriage is not, and never has been, about sex or any related activities or other such sentimentality — marriage = family ; something that two persons of same sex are biologically incapable of creating on their own.

    equal marriage as part of human progress

    Redefining a relationship having the purpose of creating families engaged with and in their culture, religion, and society as a temporary contract for sexual intercourse between two human animals is of course the exact opposite of progress.

    legislation aimed at equality, fairness and justice

    legislation aimed at one thing, and one thing only — to bring the organised religions to heel

    The violent objection of the Catholic Church to equal civil partnership

    Oh don’t be ridiculous !!!!!

    1) equal civil partnership laws already EXIST !!!

    2) Violence illustrated : (they don’t look like Ca

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14449675

  • Badjumbly

    If two people of the same sex getting married is your idea of a farce, you’ll no doubt be laughing heartily when it happens.

  • JabbaPapa
  • Andrew

    Genderized is a pretty ugly word for sure…  but it describes what a preoccupation with gender as the sole determinant of behaviour results in.  That is, a reductive focus on sameness or difference of internal and external genitalia.

  • Andrew

    I don’t think that the notion of gender is inherently incompatible with Catholicism! God made men and he made women!  Gender is a scientific term, particularly within psychology and sociology but very much throughout all of international medicine and healthcare to describe the biological results of chromosomal direction. I think it profoundly unwise to state that Catholicism has an inherent objection to that!  Our sexual identity derives in the overwhelming number of cases from our genitalia which are themselves derived from genetic instruction.  You have a gender and a sexual identity as well, not one or the other!  The Church greatly dislikes gender studies and its scientists (biologists, geneticists, sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors and healthcare professionals) because it can see in the science the errors of its own moral theological teaching, so of course the Church reacts violently to this particular branch of science ans it does with many others for the same reasons.  This is profoundly intellectually dishonest and fairly gravely immoral, because the psychological injury that has been inflicted on countless millions of persons who have actively been taught that they have the status almost of a monster (“You have an intrinsic moral evil your souls and whenever you exercise your sexuality you are guilty of a grave offence against the natural order”).  Lovely stuff, don;t you think? .

    All of this has to stop and now.  And it will.  Pew Catholics just don’t buy such hyterical pronouncements any more – less than 1% of the UK general population signed the anti-gay marriage petition.  In Scotland, despite O’Brien hundreds of thousands of disgracefully spent political monies, only 30,000 of the 200,000 anti-gay postcards posted to Catholics were sent by them to the Scottish Government.  Catholics in Europe increasingly reject the archaic teachings of the Church on human sexuality, from contraception upwards.  Similarly in the USA.  It is, therefore, only a matter of time before we see such horrific teachings sidelined into obscurity.

    What is needed is for the Church to embrace modern scientific understandings of human sexuality and not to reject them.  That would solve them matter.

  • Andrew

    See my earlier post.  The use of deliberately pejorative words such as ‘propaganda’, ‘weapon’, ‘arsenal’ and the reduction of a person with same sex attraction to the description of ‘homosexual’, say a great deal and generate far more heat than light.  Scientific research into gender conducted by highly respected international scientists from a wide variety of established disciplines recognised by the Academy is not propaganda, it is an effort to seek truths that have been actively and deliberately bastardised by the Catholic Church in its own interests and by self-hating gay clerics.

  • Andrew

    Wow, straight out of the bog Irish subintellectual Catholic Priest Handbook!  Let’s have some intellection and draw on the science and wider knowledge base, ranting is what ranters do.

  • Andrew

    This article on Catholic Moral Theolopgy is very worthy of study in the context of the discussions below.

    http://catholicmoraltheology.com/symposium-on-same-sex-marriage-evolution/

  • JabbaPapa

    I am not a “self-hating gay cleric” …

    I would normally find your claim astounding, that all of those “highly respected international scientists” are concerning themselves (according to you) with the teachings of Catholicism in particular — oh but then I don’t, do I, because your entire post is a confirmation of my position.

    That this is a propaganda war being waged by these footsoldiers of the homosexualist agenda.

  • JabbaPapa

    The jargon that you’re using is so semantically neutral that this statement of yours is practically devoid of meaning.