Gay Marriage: We cannot afford to indulge this madness

We cannot afford to indulge this madness

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Britain's most senior Catholic, sets out his opposition to the Government's plans to legalise gay marriage.



Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland

Cardinal Keith O'Brien explains

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.

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.

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.

The Telegraph

Whether you agree with the notion that gays should be allowed to marry or not, Cardinal Keith O'Brien makes some powerful points.

Certainly if the legal rights that derive from marriage already exist for homosexual couples if they wish them, he is correct in pointing out that legalising gay marriage is an attempt not to give gays the rights that heterosexual couples enjoy but to redefine what marriage is "at the behest of a small minority of activists".

Traditionally, marriage has existed to produce children. Without children, in the future, we will have no society.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien further makes the powerful point

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?

He makes a good point. If it isn't about children, why can't three or more adults who love each other get married?

Why can't we just call marriage marriage and gay marriage gay marriage?

I'm sure the well practiced orator chose the words for his arguement very carefully.

I am a VERY STRAIGHT MALE....ALPHA MALE....from MASS. Gay Marriage is legal here....and it has posed no problems. I could care less about someone elses SEX LIFE! Neither should anyone else. Split Infinity

reply to post by ollncasino


So by this reasoning, should people who are unable to have children or people who choose not have children be allowed to marry?

Peace

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
I could care less about someone elses SEX LIFE! Neither should anyone else.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien isn't concerned with gay peoples' sex life. Rather, he is concerned with the redefining of marriage to include two people of the same sex.

As he points out, if the rights already exist for gays, if the wish them, without getting married, why the need to call their civil partnership 'marriage'.

Nor is 'gay marriage' entirely benign. For instance,

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”.


The Telegraph

I don't think kids, never mind primary school kids, should be getting homosexual fairy stories such as King & King. Nor should high school students be given an explicit manual of homosexual advocacy entitled The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century.

But it is merely reflecting the new norm. Enshrined in law, no less.

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
So by this reasoning, should people who are unable to have children or people who choose not have children be allowed to marry?

Peace

Cardinal Keith O'Brien is a Catholic, so he is opposed to contraception so your first point is mute.

Should people who are unable to have children not be allowed to marry? Well, in the vast majority of cases, men and women can have children. Even when the male or female is infertile, their is still a small chance of having children.

Two men on the other hand stand no chance of ever making each other pregnant.

That right there is the point. If it's purely and only about having children, then everyone who gets married should be required to do so under the tenets of the church, and no limitation should be implemented by the couple on the number of offspring that result - as stated in the Bible. One must reproduce until God's will shows otherwise.

Do you see how this isn't a good thing for anyone? Couples who marry but don't want kids right away...tough. Wait until you do want kids. Right?

Pregnancy out of wedlock? Mandatory marriage? Think of all the ramifications of this thing?

Isn't it just fairer to say that people can marry regardless of their intent (children or not) and that all marriage *religious or not* is held in the same esteem and status as any other, be it civil or church. Homosexuals have a relationship with God as much as anyone else, regardless of what church "authorities" might have you think.

Since when has the church - any church - had anything to do with God or his will?

Adoption is awesome, isn't it? I was adopted as were my two little brothers, all of us from different birth parents. I do love the choices the world offers for those who can't have kids or don't want to have natural birth and would rather adopt to spare the pregnancy for whatever reason. I have a 17 year old. Was never married. His dad and I split when my son was like 3 years old. Oh well. That's just life. I never wanted to get married, never will. I don't believe that a piece of paper makes love any more defined than it is via living together unmarried. Plus it's not expensive when you break up. Marriage = divorce at some point = tons of money spent and valuables lost. NOT worth it.

Marriage is a crock anyway. My son even knows that it's better to just live together. A paper doesn't mean crap. Sure in the olden days it did but today? pleh. People come and go from ones life a lot. I've had many boyfriends since highschool. Last a few years, get bored, find someone else. C'est la vie.

Anyway, yes. Adoption is amazing that it gives a loving couple the right to raise a child when they can't have their own.

Pro adoption all the way.

signed a gal who is straight yet adores gay people and straight people and bi people and all people in between, is pro choice, pro smoking, anti drugs and is just an over all people lover. Love is love is love. Thank goodness IT doesn't know race, gender, age (to a degree, there, of course), richness, poorness.... love is beautiful. Let it be and worry about your own love life, Mr. Religion Catholic Priest Man. Whoever the doofus is in your opening.

Stuff like that IS the reason I went from being a Christian Methodist to a full Atheist. Aint no room in my life for something that prevents people from loving who they want, having as little kids as they want, dressing how they want, etc etc etc etc etc.

Religion. Puke.

I have this recent* (spelling)
against OLD men in TinFoil
hats...Specially those who
CLAIM to be living in the
real world....

Originally posted by Miccey
I have this recent* (spelling)
against OLD men in TinFoil
hats...Specially those who
CLAIM to be living in the
real world....

It is worth noting that again and again, voters have rejected gay marriage.

Gay marriage thrown out by all 31 U.S. states where it has been put to vote

Daily Mail

Originally posted by ollncasino
Traditionally, marriage has existed to produce children. Without children, in the future, we will have no society.

Marriage have existed and still exists as a way of telling your partner that you are willing to commit to a serious relationship that proves their love. It has NOTHING to do with having children!

reply to post by sarra1833


Love isn't sex.
And sex isn't an expression of love but lust.

reply to post by ollncasino


Voters? What the hell does anyone's vote count in an intimate matter like one's union with another? What gives anyone the right to validate or *invalidate* your love and commitment to another? Just exactly when and where do we draw the line on our own arrogance?

I think that line is drawn here. Intimate relationships are just that and are not to fall under the realm of *any* authority. It is intimate.

Maybe you'd like a community vote on who you're allowed to marry and when and perhaps you'd like your virginity tested and maybe you'd like to surrender your firstborn to the church or the government for their purposes...and maybe then you'll see how bloody absurd your comment there really is.

Vote, indeed.

Originally posted by TheEnlightenedOne

Originally posted by ollncasino
Traditionally, marriage has existed to produce children. Without children, in the future, we will have no society.

Marriage have existed and still exists as a way of telling your partner that you are willing to commit to a serious relationship that proves their love. It has NOTHING to do with having children!

MARRIAGE is about children.
Go read more about marriage before making such ignorant comments.

reply to post by sarra1833


Your atheism isn't a result of rejecting the church. Atheism is rejection of the concept of god(s).

I was raised in a Christian faith. I looked around at other faiths too because none of it sat right with me. There were no real answers and a whole lot of hypocrites. I looked at science and thought I saw answers to became an adherent rather too willingly, but over the years I noticed that there are just as many hypocrites and just as few answers. The change came when I really found the Source, the Creator, the One. I see both church and science now for what they try, but fail, to do. They are both still bumbling in the darkness. We really are such silly creatures, we humans.

What I'm trying to say is, don't reject God (or whatever you would like to call this) just because humans are still bumbling. If you can see beauty, which I see you clearly can and do, then you can know God better than any church authority. They're pretty well clueless about God. If they were, they surely wouldn't be a member of a church!

reply to post by ollncasino


So you posit that a minority should not be entitled to the same societal benefits of the majority. Gays should not be allowed to marry because it somehow equals three people getting married. Last I saw the only groups advocating polygamy were Christian heterosexuals.

I always ask this, and will ask it of you. How does it hurt you if a homosexual couple marries? Do you find it yucky? I am a bit uncomfortable with it because I don't understand it, but I am man enough to disregard my initial reaction and realize my feelings are not the same as others. Many people take issue with my carrying a gun daily.

There are other minorities that marry. Blacks and Whites, Asians and blacks, Whites and Asians, fat chicks and skinny guys, midgets and talls. Marriage should not be between a man and a woman, it should be between two people that are in love, and wish to make a commitment before country and neighbors, friends and family. The gay couple down the street that's been together for 20 years has as much of a right to marriage as the two drunk 18 year olds in Vegas.

When I read that a person in a very long term relationship can't visit a loved one in the hospital because they are not related and a gay relationship doesnt count, no matter the length, I get furious. Gay people are PEOPLE. You and I may not get it, I may find it a bit creepy, but I will not encourage legislation that limits love. It hurts no one. In my country there is this little thing about pursuing happiness. Well, if it makes you happy, love who you will and make a life with them. Two consenting adults and some won't honor it. Disgusting.

Originally posted by TheEnlightenedOne
Marriage have existed and still exists as a way of telling your partner that you are willing to commit to a serious relationship that proves their love. It has NOTHING to do with having children!

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”.

The Telegraph

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights appears to say nothing about marriage being a right of gay couples to tell their partner that they are willing to commit to a serious relationship.

Marriage has a far bigger purpose than allowing people to tell each other how much they care.

Marriage is a social institution that serves to produce and protect children. Society needs children.

to those who oppose gay marriage i ask why is this the case in america?

www.google.ca... furl=http%3A%2F%2Fapt46.net%2Ftag%2Fmap%2F&docid=bIkOHH4uozi-gM&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fapt46.net%2Fwp-content%2Fupload%2Fall-marriage.gif&w=1488&h=1190&e i=vzVTT-WqGLTZiAKN8MS1Bg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=386&vpy=157&dur=2726&hovh=201&hovw=251&tx=127&ty=96&sig=115138982111743594530&page=1&tbnh=156&tbnw=195&sta rt=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t%3A429%2Cr%3A2%2Cs%3A0

Originally posted by deepankarm
]MARRIAGE is about children.
Go read more about marriage before making such ignorant comments.

Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged

Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community or peers. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction.

Where's the part about children?

Peace

Homosexual couples can have children, for example from previous relationships, adopted or artificial insemination in case of lesbians. On the other hand, there are many heterosexual couples that are infertile.

Thus marriage is not about procreation. It is about love, and/or about family. These are surely not limited to heterosexual couples.

Anyway, if it was up to me, all legal marriage would be abolished, there is no need for paper from the government at all. Any tax breaks and such should be tied to parenthood instead.