From the Sunday Telegraph

 

The Government is this month launching a consultation on same-sex marriage, asking the public whether it should be introduced in England and Wales.

I hope many respond and consider signing the petition in support of traditional marriage organised by a new organisation, the Coalition for Marriage.

On the surface, the question of same-sex marriage may seem to be an innocuous one.

Civil partnerships have been in place for several years now, allowing same-sex couples to register their relationship and enjoy a variety of legal protections.

When these arrangements were introduced, supporters were at pains to point out that they didn’t want marriage, accepting that marriage had only ever meant the legal union of a man and a woman.

 

Those of us who were not in favour of civil partnership, believing that such relationships are harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, warned that in time marriage would be demanded too. We were accused of scaremongering then, yet exactly such demands are upon us now.

 

Since all the legal rights of marriage are already available to homosexual couples, it is clear that this proposal is not about rights, but rather is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists.

 

Redefining marriage will have huge implications for what is taught in our schools, and for wider society. It will redefine society since the institution of marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of society. The repercussions of enacting same-sex marriage into law will be immense.

 

But can we simply redefine terms at a whim? Can a word whose meaning has been clearly understood in every society throughout history suddenly be changed to mean something else?

If same-sex marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman?

Will that teacher’s right to hold and teach this view be respected or will it be removed? Will both teacher and pupils simply become the next victims of the tyranny of tolerance, heretics, whose dissent from state-imposed orthodoxy must be crushed at all costs?

 

In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women. But when our politicians suggest jettisoning the established understanding of marriage and subverting its meaning they aren’t derided.

 

Instead, their attempt to redefine reality is given a polite hearing, their madness is indulged. Their proposal represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.

As an institution, marriage long predates the existence of any state or government. It was not created by governments and should not be changed by them. Instead, recognising the innumerable benefits which marriage brings to society, they should act to protect and uphold marriage, not attack or dismantle it.

 

This is a point of view that would have been endorsed and accepted only a few years ago, yet today advancing a traditional understanding of marriage risks one being labelled an intolerant bigot.

There is no doubt that, as a society, we have become blasé about the importance of marriage as a stabilising influence and less inclined to prize it as a worthwhile institution.

It has been damaged and undermined over the course of a generation, yet marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that the children born of those unions will have a mother and a father.

 

This brings us to the one perspective which seems to be completely lost or ignored: the point of view of the child. All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father; the evidence in favour of the stability and well-being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal. It cannot be provided by a same-sex couple, however well-intentioned they may be.

Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father.

 

Other dangers exist. If marriage can be redefined so that it no longer means a man and a woman but two men or two women, why stop there? Why not allow three men or a woman and two men to constitute a marriage, if they pledge their fidelity to one another? If marriage is simply about adults who love each other, on what basis can three adults who love each other be prevented from marrying?

In November 2003, after a court decision in Massachusetts to legalise gay marriage, school libraries were required to stock same-sex literature; primary schoolchildren were given homosexual fairy stories such as King & King. Some high school students were even given an explicit manual of homosexual advocacy entitled The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century. Education suddenly had to comply with what was now deemed “normal”.

 

Disingenuously, the Government has suggested that same-sex marriage wouldn’t be compulsory and churches could choose to opt out. This is staggeringly arrogant.

No Government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage.

 

Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that “no one will be forced to keep a slave”.

 

Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right? Or would they simply amount to weasel words masking a great wrong?

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is crystal clear: marriage is a right which applies to men and women, “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”.

 

This universal truth is so self-evident that it shouldn’t need to be repeated. If the Government attempts to demolish a universally recognised human right, they will have forfeited the trust which society has placed in them and their intolerance will shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world.

 

Cardinal O’Brien is President of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland and Britain’s most senior Catholic.

 

 

It's hard to know where to begin attacking such nonsense from a supposedly intelligent man. Let's start with his assertion that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Poppycock. This is what it says

 

1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

 

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

 

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

 

In other words, all it says is that men and women should be free to marry. It says nothing about men only being able to marry women.

 

Some of the comments on the Telegraph website are seriously scary. They make Craig look like a woolly Liberal.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9121424...l#disqus_thread

 

The attitude of some people terrifies me - I had a look at the comments on the Telegraph website (I only got to page 2 before feeling totally sickened).

From the Sunday Telegraph

 

1.Since all the legal rights of marriage are already available to homosexual couples, it is clear that this proposal is not about rights, but rather is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists.

 

2. Redefining marriage will have huge implications for what is taught in our schools, and for wider society. It will redefine society since the institution of marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of society. The repercussions of enacting same-sex marriage into law will be immense.

 

3. But can we simply redefine terms at a whim? Can a word whose meaning has been clearly understood in every society throughout history suddenly be changed to mean something else?

If same-sex marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman?

Will that teacher’s right to hold and teach this view be respected or will it be removed? Will both teacher and pupils simply become the next victims of the tyranny of tolerance, heretics, whose dissent from state-imposed orthodoxy must be crushed at all costs?

 

4.In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women. But when our politicians suggest jettisoning the established understanding of marriage and subverting its meaning they aren’t derided.

 

5. Instead, their attempt to redefine reality is given a polite hearing, their madness is indulged. Their proposal represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.

As an institution, marriage long predates the existence of any state or government. It was not created by governments and should not be changed by them. Instead, recognising the innumerable benefits which marriage brings to society, they should act to protect and uphold marriage, not attack or dismantle it.

 

6. This is a point of view that would have been endorsed and accepted only a few years ago, yet today advancing a traditional understanding of marriage risks one being labelled an intolerant bigot.

There is no doubt that, as a society, we have become blasé about the importance of marriage as a stabilising influence and less inclined to prize it as a worthwhile institution.

It has been damaged and undermined over the course of a generation, yet marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that the children born of those unions will have a mother and a father.

 

7. This brings us to the one perspective which seems to be completely lost or ignored: the point of view of the child. All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father; the evidence in favour of the stability and well-being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal. It cannot be provided by a same-sex couple, however well-intentioned they may be.

Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father.

 

8. Other dangers exist. If marriage can be redefined so that it no longer means a man and a woman but two men or two women, why stop there? Why not allow three men or a woman and two men to constitute a marriage, if they pledge their fidelity to one another? If marriage is simply about adults who love each other, on what basis can three adults who love each other be prevented from marrying?

 

9. In November 2003, after a court decision in Massachusetts to legalise gay marriage, school libraries were required to stock same-sex literature; primary schoolchildren were given homosexual fairy stories such as King & King. Some high school students were even given an explicit manual of homosexual advocacy entitled The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century. Education suddenly had to comply with what was now deemed “normal”.

 

10. Disingenuously, the Government has suggested that same-sex marriage wouldn’t be compulsory and churches could choose to opt out. This is staggeringly arrogant.

No Government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage.

 

11. Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that “no one will be forced to keep a slave”.

 

12. Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right? Or would they simply amount to weasel words masking a great wrong?

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is crystal clear: marriage is a right which applies to men and women, “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”.

 

13. This universal truth is so self-evident that it shouldn’t need to be repeated. If the Government attempts to demolish a universally recognised human right, they will have forfeited the trust which society has placed in them and their intolerance will shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world.

[/url]

 

I've numbered these points to make it a little easier for me...

 

1- It is entirely about rights, for example I still would not go out in public and either kiss or hold my partner's hand in public for fear of reprisal, society is still not equal. I read somewhere else a very salient point and as the cardinal usees slavery as a point later on I think it pertinant. In South Africa they used to have two exit doors from the airports one for whites and one for blacks- neither was disadvantaged as they both lead out of the airport urgo: what's the problem? (so this logic runs)

 

2- We constantly redefine words and society, someone once wrote "Our Present is constantly being re-written by our past" nothing is static.

 

3- The irony of using words like heretic should not surely be lost on the cardinal? Even if his point were true (which it isn't) then that would be a little piece of historical Karma for him wouldn't it?

 

4- See Suedehead's rebuttal

 

5- It may predate government etc but the church has had no such qualms about writing the sanctity of marriage into official government policies- what it really means is now that we do not control/ have an influence over government we don't like it.

 

6- In case the cardinal hadn't noticed the rate of divorce is truely shocking and childbirth outside of marriage is an ever increasing number so clearly something isn't working.

 

7- Why does this bit bring to mind the "Simpsons" and Reverand Lovejoy's wife's cries in any crisis "WILL NO-ONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?" Just think cardinal those hetrosexual couples are giving birth to/ and raising FUTURE HOMOSEXUALS- where will this end?

 

8- Yes this is called Polygamy and is recognised under civil law in many countries and has existed for just as long as monogamy, as you say it predates government and state so why tamper with it?

 

9- Haha, scratch the surface of the church and you get down to "normal"= straight, "peverted"= gay, so much for the gentle reformation of organised catholicism, the demonisation goes on. Odd that Historically speaking some of the greatest artists created the most beautiful buildings (in additions to artwork still held by the church and in particular the Vatican) done by homosexuals....odd that they keep hold of these.

 

10- as noted re polygany there is no "universally recognised" definition of marraige

 

11- Yet the subjugation of another minority is fine you Mr Cardinal is it?

 

12- nothing appears to be being dismantled "normal" people can marry (in fact let's give heterosexuals the right to have a civil partnership as well) it's all footfall through the church which may keep more of them from closing.

 

13- Intolerance- see right there is your word of the day Cardinal.

 

In short- tosh!

I cant believe the clown actually has the gall to compare gay marriage to slavery.... What an utter tool....

 

To be honest, I think that this Spoof article on the Newsthump website issues the right amount of contempt this idiot, and the Catholic Church itself, deserves....

 

Dress-wearing 73 year-old unmarried celibate man vehemently supports thing he has no experience of

http://newsthump.com/2012/03/04/dress-wear...-experience-of/

 

The most senior Roman Catholic cleric in Britain, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, has spoken out against gay marriage, claiming that just because he doesn’t have the first clue what he’s talking about shouldn’t stop him talking to everyone about it.

 

O’Brien claimed that gay marriage would deprive children of a traditional upbringing which should include a mother, a father, and a shady old man who touches them in church.

 

He told the Sunday Telegraph, “What’s important here is that we think of the children. No-one wants to see unhappy kids – particularly not priests. Crying kids are desperately unattractive.” ( :lol: :lol: Woah, talk about light the blue touch paper with that one....)

 

“Plus, any child brought up in a happy loving household is likely to be harder to prey on, even if that household is a gay one.”

 

“Gay marriage is an unknown quantity to the Catholic Church, so who knows what effect it will have on our ability to abuse children – it’s probably better for all concerned if we just leave it well alone.”

 

Church officials have backed O’Brien’s statement, claiming that having a pointy hat and a big gold chair means that their two-thousand year-old opinions on the modern world are incredibly important.

 

A Catholic spokesperson said, “If we let people live the sorts of lives they want to, which make them happy and don’t affect anyone else, then what role does the church have left in society?”

 

“Before you know it, the collection plates we send round to parishioners at mass will be empty and we might start having to sell off our billions in assets.”

 

“This is the slippery slope towards the church becoming obsolete – so of course we’re against it.”

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That spoof article is brilliant. Just goes to show that every time the Catholic Church spouts an opinion about a current issue it's just a greater indictment on the flaws of organised religion in general.

http://www.c4em.org.uk/

http://c4m.org.uk/

The consultation on proposals to allow gay couples to have a civil marriage opened today. No doubt many people will oppose the proposals after being encouraged to do so by various religious leaders (despite the fact that the proposals are only about civil marriage and, thus will not affect religious ceremonies) so it is important that people who support the proposals also respond. You can add your views - it doesn't take long and it is completely anonymous - here

I´d say let people do what they want with their lives, but why call this marriage? You don´t give birth to children off you butt, your butt is not a sexual organ. Marriage has always been between a men and a woman, and this pre-dates the catholic church and even the most ancient monotheistic religions. The cardinal is spot on everything he says. People who hate the church will no doubt use ad-hominem arguments, since the cardinal represents the church. Tough the cardinal has not mentioned God or any particular religious belief in this article. There are a lot of people who are not particularly religious, and even atheist people, who can see, for obvious reasons, the union between people of the same sex should not be designated by the same word that designate the union of people of opposite sex - as has always been.

 

Even the ancient greeks, who supposedly tolerated and/or even supported sex between men, have never called or classified those unions in the same league as those unions on which families and the whole society was based, a.k.a., the unions between men and woman, which enabled children to be born and secured the continuity of our species.

 

 

They might aprove a law sayng that an union between a men and an elephant, or a men and a banana tree is a "marriage" but it still wouldn´t be.

I´d say let people do what they want with their lives, but why call this marriage? You don´t give birth to children off you butt, your butt is not a sexual organ. Marriage has always been between a men and a woman, and this pre-dates the catholic church and even the most ancient monotheistic religions. The cardinal is spot on everything he says. People who hate the church will no doubt use ad-hominem arguments, since the cardinal represents the church. Tough the cardinal has not mentioned God or any particular religious belief in this article. There are a lot of people who are not particularly religious, and even atheist people, who can see, for obvious reasons, the union between people of the same sex should not be designated by the same word that designate the union of people of opposite sex - as has always been.

 

Even the ancient greeks, who supposedly tolerated and/or even supported sex between men, have never called or classified those unions in the same league as those unions on which families and the whole society was based, a.k.a., the unions between men and woman, which enabled children to be born and secured the continuity of our species.

They might aprove a law sayng that an union between a men and an elephant, or a men and a banana tree is a "marriage" but it still wouldn´t be.

It;s got nothing to do with the church and even less to do with a Scottish cardinal as this only applies to England and Wales. The proposal is to allow civil marriage only, not religious marriage. No government is likely to compel the church to allow gay weddings (although they may legislate to allow individual churches to choose). After all, individual churches can still choose not to marry divorcees.

I cant believe the clown actually has the gall to compare gay marriage to slavery.... What an utter tool....

 

To be honest, I think that this Spoof article on the Newsthump website issues the right amount of contempt this idiot, and the Catholic Church itself, deserves....

 

 

Well, reading the article, the cardinal actually seems to be a lot more enlighted and have a much better cultural background then yourself. In fact, I doubt your opinions actually have any background on reading or researching, you just vomit from your mind whatever you think is right and then vomits insults on anyone else that disagrees.

 

In fact, your posts in this forum since years make the catholic church and even the bible belt evangelicals look like amateurs in the art of discrimination.

 

Since 5 years or even more, it seems that the only thing you know about christianity and the catholic church is that priests rape children[/i]. That´d be alright if you were a teenager rebelling against your parents religion, but as an adult men you still have this shallow, superficial views of the world? Guy, seriously: grow up!

I don't ever contribute to threads in this forum, but did somebody SERIOUSLY just compare gay marriage to the marriage of a man and a banana? Regardless of my own personal preference with regards to this subject, society is never going to progress with people like that spouting such moronic idiocy and whether the poster in question wants to admit it or not, a LOT of that regressive attitude stems from religion (which, it is worth pointing out, the issue of civil marriage does not affect.)

Well, reading the article, the cardinal actually seems to be a lot more enlighted and have a much better cultural background then yourself. In fact, I doubt your opinions actually have any background on reading or researching, you just vomit from your mind whatever you think is right and then vomits insults on anyone else that disagrees.

 

In fact, your posts in this forum since years make the catholic church and even the bible belt evangelicals look like amateurs in the art of discrimination.

 

Since 5 years or even more, it seems that the only thing you know about christianity and the catholic church is that priests rape children[/i]. That´d be alright if you were a teenager rebelling against your parents religion, but as an adult men you still have this shallow, superficial views of the world? Guy, seriously: grow up!

 

Oh, FFS, I posted a SPOOF news-story.... How about you grow up, and get a sense of humour.. ? -_-

 

The Cardinal's "views" on gay marriage are beyond contemptible and bigoted crap and frankly have no place in this century, which is why I felt he was unworthy of anything other than having the piss taken out of him...

 

Your attempts to try and draw some kind of comparison with Ancient Greece is deeply flawed, women were not permitted to take part in the democratic processes of Ancient Greece, so, hey, yeah, let's be like ancient Greece and deny universal suffrage. Seriously, are you for real? You then argue in one of your posts about marriage being "the unions between men and woman, which enabled children to be born and secured the continuity of our species". Well, doesn't that rather assume that people get married just to "continue the species", should we then prohibit marriage for women or men who aren't capable of continuing the species..? For whatever reason, be it because they're too old to bear children, or they're infertile? I mean, logically, what's the point in a 65-year old couple getting married for example, they're not exactly gonna be "continuing the species" anymore than a gay couple, are they..? There simply is no logical or intellectual argument against gay marriage that actually holds up to close scrutiny, that's the facts here...

 

This has absolutely sod all to do with "reading and research", this is an EQUAL RIGHTS issue. End of story... 50 years ago, twats like him would've been against inter-racial marriage, and come up with all sorts of very clever, but bullshit, reasons as to why it was a "bad thing" for society to try and obfuscate the fact that bigots be bigots, I care not for their honeyed words and their attempts at justification because I can see through them for what they are, control freaks who are losing that control over us and they cant handle it.. And no doubt your 50 years ago self would be arguing in favour of the self-same ignorant crap against inter-racial marriage, and sending off an "Outraged from Tumbridge Wells" type letter to The Times saying "Oh, we cant allow this, what will the offspring be like? They wont know if they're black or white. It's going to lead to what Enoch Powell was talking about. It's un-natural to comingle the races...", blah, blah, blah, f***ing BLAH... because people like you are just so eager to blindly follow some idiot in a cassock or some prick of a politician instead of using their own minds to think for themselves.... It's his OPINION, how the fukk can he possibly speak from any kind of experience of human relationships seeing as how he took a vow celibacy...? Taking a vow of Celibacy is a CHOICE, being gay isn't.

 

The reason why we now dont have any objections to inter-racial marriage, in fact the reason why there is no racial segregation anymore, is because PEOPLE TOOK TO THE STREETS AND FOUGHT FOR THEIR CIVIL LIBERTIES... CAPEESH!!!! -_-

 

I was brought up a Catholic, and you better believe I know more about the disgusting, hypocritical, evil ideology of the Catholic Church than I want to. Any organisation that covers up institutionalised child abuse has no right to preach anyone on "morality" (and yes, I WILL keep coming back to that fact, because it's the big fundamental reason why the Catholic Church simply has no moral or ethical authority anymore. Well, if they ever really had it to begin with).... People need to be more spiritual and a lot less religious, IMHO, Spirituality leads to a greater understanding so we can be free, religions try to limit our understanding so that we'll never be free....

I don't ever contribute to threads in this forum, but did somebody SERIOUSLY just compare gay marriage to the marriage of a man and a banana? Regardless of my own personal preference with regards to this subject, society is never going to progress with people like that spouting such moronic idiocy and whether the poster in question wants to admit it or not, a LOT of that regressive attitude stems from religion (which, it is worth pointing out, the issue of civil marriage does not affect.)

 

Precisely, one has only to look at the regressive attitudes of people like Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann who wear their crazy religious zealotry on their sleeves and dont believe in a separation of Church and State, oh of course, by "church", that means the Christian Church, not any other kind, even though the USA is made up of immigrants from all corners of the earth and the only indigenous culture is the Native American, who are certainly not Christian. Considering some of their incredibly rancid opinions, then they ironically have a downer on Sharia Law, well, a State under the control of Christian religious fundamentalists would sure as Hell not be all that essentially different to a State under the control of Sharia Law...

 

Oh, FFS, I posted a SPOOF news-story.... How about you grow up, and get a sense of humour.. ? -_-

 

The Cardinal's "views" on gay marriage are beyond contemptible and bigoted crap and frankly have no place in this century, which is why I felt he was unworthy of anything other than having the piss taken out of him...

 

Your attempts to try and draw some kind of comparison with Ancient Greece is deeply flawed, women were not permitted to take part in the democratic processes of Ancient Greece, so, hey, yeah, let's be like ancient Greece and deny universal suffrage. Seriously, are you for real? You then argue in one of your posts about marriage being "the unions between men and woman, which enabled children to be born and secured the continuity of our species". Well, doesn't that rather assume that people get married just to "continue the species", should we then prohibit marriage for women or men who aren't capable of continuing the species..? For whatever reason, be it because they're too old to bear children, or they're infertile? I mean, logically, what's the point in a 65-year old couple getting married for example, they're not exactly gonna be "continuing the species" anymore than a gay couple, are they..? There simply is no logical or intellectual argument against gay marriage that actually holds up to close scrutiny, that's the facts here...

 

This has absolutely sod all to do with "reading and research", this is an EQUAL RIGHTS issue. End of story... 50 years ago, twats like him would've been against inter-racial marriage, and come up with all sorts of very clever, but bullshit, reasons as to why it was a "bad thing" for society to try and obfuscate the fact that bigots be bigots, I care not for their honeyed words and their attempts at justification because I can see through them for what they are, control freaks who are losing that control over us and they cant handle it.. And no doubt your 50 years ago self would be arguing in favour of the self-same ignorant crap against inter-racial marriage, and sending off an "Outraged from Tumbridge Wells" type letter to The Times saying "Oh, we cant allow this, what will the offspring be like? They wont know if they're black or white. It's going to lead to what Enoch Powell was talking about. It's un-natural to comingle the races...", blah, blah, blah, f***ing BLAH... because people like you are just so eager to blindly follow some idiot in a cassock or some prick of a politician instead of using their own minds to think for themselves.... It's his OPINION, how the fukk can he possibly speak from any kind of experience of human relationships seeing as how he took a vow celibacy...? Taking a vow of Celibacy is a CHOICE, being gay isn't.

 

The reason why we now dont have any objections to inter-racial marriage, in fact the reason why there is no racial segregation anymore, is because PEOPLE TOOK TO THE STREETS AND FOUGHT FOR THEIR CIVIL LIBERTIES... CAPEESH!!!! -_-

 

I was brought up a Catholic, and you better believe I know more about the disgusting, hypocritical, evil ideology of the Catholic Church than I want to. Any organisation that covers up institutionalised child abuse has no right to preach anyone on "morality" (and yes, I WILL keep coming back to that fact, because it's the big fundamental reason why the Catholic Church simply has no moral or ethical authority anymore. Well, if they ever really had it to begin with).... People need to be more spiritual and a lot less religious, IMHO, Spirituality leads to a greater understanding so we can be free, religions try to limit our understanding so that we'll never be free....

Having read the previous posts I was waiting for your reply and it has not disappointed me - all good points well made.

I´d say let people do what they want with their lives, but why call this marriage? You don´t give birth to children off you butt, your butt is not a sexual organ. Marriage has always been between a men and a woman, and this pre-dates the catholic church and even the most ancient monotheistic religions. The cardinal is spot on everything he says. People who hate the church will no doubt use ad-hominem arguments, since the cardinal represents the church. Tough the cardinal has not mentioned God or any particular religious belief in this article. There are a lot of people who are not particularly religious, and even atheist people, who can see, for obvious reasons, the union between people of the same sex should not be designated by the same word that designate the union of people of opposite sex - as has always been.

 

Even the ancient greeks, who supposedly tolerated and/or even supported sex between men, have never called or classified those unions in the same league as those unions on which families and the whole society was based, a.k.a., the unions between men and woman, which enabled children to be born and secured the continuity of our species.

They might aprove a law sayng that an union between a men and an elephant, or a men and a banana tree is a "marriage" but it still wouldn´t be.

Oh DO fuck off, you vile prick! :manson: An elephant, or a banana tree, can't consent to marriage and have no concept of love, hence it's a completely different proposition to that of gay marriage.

 

Marriage hasn't always been between a man and a woman - hey there Sweden/Spain/Netherlands/Argentina/Iowa! - and society doesn't break apart if it takes place between a man and a man. People don't suddenly stop having kids just because marriages which aren't based around procreation now exist, just as people don't suddenly stop having kids because straight marriages exist between the infertile. Marriage is about the concept of love, not the concept of children. It makes no difference that it was once distinct or that a union now exists for gay people in the form of civil partnership - it was once the case that interracial marriage was perceived as being wrong and against the natural order of things. Had it not gone the whole way and instead 'interracial partnerships' been created it would be considered discriminatory for obvious reasons - why should marriages or unions distinguish themselves according to the sexuality of the people in them? They wouldn't for race or other irrelevant characteristics, so what makes sexuality so special that it warrants this when marriage is not wholly about procreation and never has been?

 

Also, on a final note, these proposals are about civil marriage, a secular, legalistic institution. The Church has no jurisdiction over it and ought not to have any either. Marriage is a state institution and not a religious one. Get used to it!

Oh DO fuck off, you vile prick! :manson: An elephant, or a banana tree, can't consent to marriage and have no concept of love, hence it's a completely different proposition to that of gay marriage.

 

Marriage hasn't always been between a man and a woman - hey there Sweden/Spain/Netherlands/Argentina/Iowa! - and society doesn't break apart if it takes place between a man and a man. People don't suddenly stop having kids just because marriages which aren't based around procreation now exist, just as people don't suddenly stop having kids because straight marriages exist between the infertile. Marriage is about the concept of love, not the concept of children. It makes no difference that it was once distinct or that a union now exists for gay people in the form of civil partnership - it was once the case that interracial marriage was perceived as being wrong and against the natural order of things. Had it not gone the whole way and instead 'interracial partnerships' been created it would be considered discriminatory for obvious reasons - why should marriages or unions distinguish themselves according to the sexuality of the people in them? They wouldn't for race or other irrelevant characteristics, so what makes sexuality so special that it warrants this when marriage is not wholly about procreation and never has been?

 

Also, on a final note, these proposals are about civil marriage, a secular, legalistic institution. The Church has no jurisdiction over it and ought not to have any either. Marriage is a state institution and not a religious one. Get used to it!

 

Precisely.. And having been to both Registry Office marriages and Civil Partnerships, I can report there really is very little difference between the two in essence. Seeing two gay friends of mine getting married was absolutely f***ing brilliant. It was one of the really early civil partnerships, and people there were just cheering.. You had to be there to just see how awesome it was... And, hey, guess what, they're still together...

 

And, indeed, you are correct, a marriage is a declaration of love between two people to their families and friends, it's not a declaration of "hey, we're gonna start breeding"...

Good LORD, now here's a rather frightening revelation.....

 

Poll: Many Southern Conservatives Feel Interracial Marriage Should Be Illegal

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/03/13/...uld-be-illegal/

 

WASHINGTON (CBSDC) – Primary elections in the conservative swing states of Alabama and Mississippi are already underway. And recent surveys taken by Public Policy Polling reveal that close races are anticipated in both states.

 

But that isn’t all the polls revealed.

 

Data from both states shows that significant portions of right-leaning voters do not believe in the validity of either interracial marriage or evolution.

 

Of some 600 likely Republican primary voters asked, 60 percent of those responding in Alabama said they do not believe in evolution, and 21 percent from the same state said they feel interracial marriage should be illegal.

 

In Mississippi, a reported 29 percent said interracial couples should not be legally permitted to marry, and 66 percent do not believe in evolution.

 

Earlier this year, the Pew Research Center released the results of a study that indicate a record number of interracial marriages, with a reported 4.8 million mixed race unions found throughout the country.

 

Since 1967, interracial marriage has been recognized as legal, after a Supreme Court decision in the Loving v. Virginia case that ruled laws prohibiting it to be unconstitutional. Many states had chosen to formally recognize the unions before this decision.

 

Like interracial marriage, evolution was not accepted socially – or as part of a secondary biology curriculum – for the first part of the 20th century in the United States. In 1968, the Supreme Court ruling on Epperson v. Arkansas gave evolution legal protection, while simultaneously disallowing creationism as an alternative theory.

 

The public study of creationism and campaigns for legal definitions of marriage have been significant conservative rallying points during the past few elections.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Doesn't surprise but it's still bloody scary. The 60% not believing in evolution seems quite low if anything somewhere like Alabama given I heard that 45% of the whole country thinks the Earth is less than 6,000 years old.

Doesn't surprise but it's still bloody scary. The 60% not believing in evolution seems quite low if anything somewhere like Alabama given I heard that 45% of the whole country thinks the Earth is less than 6,000 years old.

 

As Bill Hicks once said "Isn't it funny how the people who believe in Creationism seem really un-evolved...." :lol:

 

The seemingly poor standard of education in America is, to be frank, fucking terrifying.

 

 

Yes, I am more than aware that there is a large number of American's that are well educated but the vast amount of stuff like this that comes out from the country makes you seriously wonder how a first world country and indeed such a vast economic power has a 4th world education system.