Thursday 6 October 2011

I, for one,

I, personally, do not wish to see the days of the criminal persecution of practising homosexuals return. I genuinely believe in 'live and let live', and I would rather win others round by persuasion. I hope that they would think the same thing as me, that they would rather persuade me than persecute me.

But I think that by them seeking to embrace marriage, a heterosexual lifestyle, simply with a difference in plumbing, as it were, they are actually doing themselves a disservice. They have all the advantages of unions with the civil partnership thing: it seems to me that by trying to imitate marriage they are admitting that, actually, there is something missing in the quality of their relationship.

Part of the problem is that we have failed to define marriage as what it should be, as necessarily involving openness to the gift of life, meaning children.

Once one has said that marriage is simply for the emotional, sexual, and (sometimes) economic interest of a man and woman, the question naturally arises 'why not for two men, or two women, too?'

Should the Government establish the union of two individuals of the same sex as what it calls 'marriage', I will never vote Conservative or Liberal Democrat again until the policy is reversed. And I, for one, will do my best to encourage others to think and do the same.

The Conservative Party should be very careful of alienating its natural supporters in the hope of attracting a new constituency from other parties. That they would succeed in this is highly improbable: why should proles vote for a load of toffs, after all? 

Our beloved leader simply wants to show that he is right-on. Down with it. And all those other things. Blairus revidvivus, in fact. He said a year ago that the Holy Father had 'made us sit up and listen'. Well, not very much, it would appear.


Patricius said...

After this why not polygamy?

Fr William R Young said...

I think English law is already incoherent in a number of respects, e.g. it punishes infanticide but permits abortion. Marriage too. I hope that a lawyer can clarify this, but I think that if a party to a marriage did not want children and the marriage failed because of this, it would be grounds in English law for a civil nullity. At a deeper level, marriage in English law does recognise the three bona.

William said...

"After this why not polygamy?"

While slippery-slope arguments are not always sound, there is clear evidence that those with an interest in, er, other non-standard sexual configurations are learning fast (especially in the US, though anything there makes its way over here before long) from the mix of political lobbying, "equality" rhetoric, and moral blackmail deployed with such resounding success by the homosexual lobby. Polygamists, of course; but the same line is openly being taken by persons of this sexual preference. (And then how about this one?) Trying to force such relationships into the mould of Marriage, without "duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained", can only result in breaking the mould. (And as you suggest, it implicitly acknowledges that there is something defective in the relationship which requires the state's seal of approval through the redefinition of the institution of Marriage in order for it to be made whole.)

William said...

Given that no-one seriously thinks that any guarantees to the churches, that they will not be forced to conduct homosexual "marriages", will last longer than the first test case brought before the courts, this petition to the UK Government is one which ought, IMO, to be made widely known:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to remove or amend the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs, enacted 2007) that Outlaw Discrimination in the Provision of Goods and Services on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans sexual etc etc.) These violate our human right to choose goods and services supportive of traditional family life where there is a father and mother, husband and wife at its centre and simultaneously refuse us the right to reject goods and services that force us and our children to conform to gay and secular ideology, or be in an environment that condones or promotes it.

Anonymous said...

The harsh reality of the homosexual life is that it is essentially polygamous. It is noticeable that the majority who enter into civil partnerships are late-middle-aged and have property to protect.

I don't think I have ever heard of young homosexuals entering such partnerships. Having an eye round the corner is inescapable in addition to the excitement of the chase. The lives of many young homosexuals are characterised by heart-breaking infidelity and sexual jealousy. Neither form a basis for 'marriage'.

Toby said...

If I hadn't already let my party membership lapse a couple of years ago on the grounds of the party starting to consider "ideals" a dirty word, I would renounce it now.

I would encourage anybody who has membership to renounce it with a letter of explanation and hit the party where it hurts . . . financially.

Recusant said...

In the end, what business is it of the state to licence love? Society should not have an interest in the confirmation of affection, whether it be between a man and a woman, two men or two women. Society does, and should, have an interest in the raising of children, its newest members. Therefore the state does have an interest in encouraging and confirming those structures that provide the best basis for child rearing: heterosexual marriage.

I despair at the arguments put forward by Cameron and others, arguments that are purely based on sentiment and a notion of being 'fair'. But then most of our politics and common morals are now based on sentiment.

gemoftheocean said...

As constituted now, I really don't think their is a genuinely conservative 'Conservative' party in the UK -- the closest you have is UKiP. David Cameron is WORTHLESS.

Andrew said...

Good grief Sean, you're admitting to voting conservative?

On a more serious note, I'll start by echoing one of your previous posts with Ghandi's famous quote " we are all God's children". I have just celebrated 25 glorious years of marriage, and do not feel threatened in any way by same sex partners enjoying the same happiness, whether it's called marriage, civil union ( which I don't think anyine is objecting to in this thread) or any other term. No doubt I'm influenced by considering myself fortunate to number among my close friends a few who are homosexual ( and who share the values I aspire to of treating fellow men and women with decency and respect).

Rather than worrying about a very small minority of society as a whole, we should be more concerned about the number of marriages that fail and the wreckage they normally leave in their wake. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating making divorce tougher, but rather looking at why marriage no longer seems to be for life in so many people's minds. Perhaps an interesting topic for a future post?

Recusant said...

If you will forgive me Andrew, you're argument demonstrates the point I was trying to make: it is based on sentiment and a sense of fairness, which are at best second and third order matters. It avoids getting to grips with what marriage, for society, means and for what purpose it is uniquely privileged.

The fragility of modern marriage is inherently tied up with this recent tendency to see marriage as a mere affirmation of love rather than its primary purpose - and the only one that justifies its privileges - being for the procreation and raising of children. And if you follow that sentimental way, then of course it becomes 'unfair' that good and kind and loving homosexuals, whether friends of yours or other, cannot be married like a man and a woman can.

Whether a man votes Labour or Conservative, Pink, Yellow, Black or Blue should have no bearing on his Catholicism: it was the assumption that to be Catholic was to be Labour that has landed us with many of the problems we currently face.

Andrew said...

Thanks for your interesting and measured argument Recusant. If I understand you correctly you would have no objection to a civil union between non heterosexual couples with all of the legal rights and obligations of marriage (aside from procreation of course) so long as it is not called marriage. No argument from me if I have characterized your points correctly. Apologies however if I have misrepresented you.

I'm not sure I follow your argument about affirmation of love. In my own case, I fell deeply in love, and became convinced I wanted to spend the rest of my life with my wife, hopefully blessed with children - which turned out to be the case. But of course you have to work at it as you go through life's ups and downs and not give up at early hurdles.

I should clarify my comment on voting conservative was intended to be humerous. A weak joke I agree, and perhaps I should have added an "LOL" to make this clear. How people vote is entirely their business, not that it makes a lot of difference these days where there is little to differentiate the different sides of politics, at least in Australia.

Recusant said...

Andrew, I do have an objection to Civil Unions. It was quite clear at the time that the intention was for them to be a stop-gap, a softening-up, on the road to same-sex marriage. As I mentioned before, I really don't see why the law and the state need to recognise and privilege an emotion,namely, love.

Do not misunderstand me, love is a marvellous thing, if it is true and honest and generous. I have no doubt that you married your wife for love, but also assume you were open to children. If so, you would have brought children into the best environment we can hope for and where they can see agape and eros rightly directed. However,if you loved each other, but you just wanted to get married for the tax and inheritance privileges, and the fact that it is the done thing to show your love is 'serious', but had no intention of allowing for the procreation of children, then I cannot honestly say that that would be a marriage or that the rest of society should support it and pay for it by giving it relief from various taxes.

Anonymous said...

Father, we've never met, but I'm a big fan of your blog and was at the wedding mass you celebrated on Saturday. I just wanted to say thank you, it was amongst the most beautiful and reverent Masses I have had the pleasure of worshiping at. It may amuse you to know that at about 10pm there was a discussion going on in the gents of all places at how splendid visually the NO looks when celebrated ad orientem!

Pastor in Monte said...

How very kind! It was a splendid event, wasn't it?