On balance, I find myself agreeing with Cardinal O’Bien on the matter of gay marriage. Given that there is already in place the facility for people to have a legally recognised union, the redefinition of the word marriage is unnecessary. Ultimately, O’Brien is right when he says that marriage is the union of a man and a woman – primarily for the purpose of child rearing. That is the convention upon which it was originally formed. Although, of course, there are the awkward sods such as Mrs L and I who married but chose not to have children.
That said, the union of two people really should be none of the state’s business in the first place. So when I hear the Cameroid wittering about interfering in such because he is a Conservative, my blood runs cold and I think murderous thoughts. And unless they are worshippers, it’s none of the church’s either.
XX Given that there is already in place the facility for people to have a legally recognised union, the redefinition of the word marriage is unnecessary. XX
It is the fact that any institution, political or a hobby club, such as a “religion”, can steal a word and claim they have the only legally binding deffinition of that word, that is objectionable.
Has any one seen their copyright?
No?
Then they can fuck RIGHT off.
‘Has anyone seen their copyright?’
Why not try the Oxford English Dictionary, and then move on to the law of the land. In both cases, you will find the definitions agree with the church’s definition. This is clear in the second case, or else they wouldn’t need to change it, would they? As with Greg below, your hatred of Christianity blinds you to rational thought. If you want to, you may go digging through the history books and the anthropological studies for examples of where marriage was not defined as a contract between a man and a woman. Good luck. The only example I can think of is the guy who was forced to marry his goat – and that was because the local villagers decreed that, as he’d taken it has a wife in fact, he must do so in law.
The problem is that the union of two people does have a wide range of legal implications at present – inheritance tax, for a start. If the whole concept of legally-recognised marriage was done away with, I would imagine a lot of feminists would be up in arms about women losing legal protections. And, if there’s no State marriage, can we have religiously-recognised polygamy? After all, there’s nothing legally to stop a man living with four women now, he just can’t be married to more than one of them.
Only because the state says so. Indeed, the “problems” associated with the institution of marriage are a direct consequence of the state poking its nose into our affairs in the first place. Do away with inheritance tax and the problem disappears and while we are at it, without the state poking about and making arbitrary rules, there would be no problem with recognising common law cohabitation for the purposes of inheritance. Polygamy? fine by me. None of my business and none of the state’s.
The problems and unintended consequences just mount up, don’t they? All because some people want what they know they can never, ever have.
No, not ‘gay marriage’. They’ve got that, in civil partnership. No, they want the ability to legally force people who are opposed to their own choices to bow down before them and admit defeat.
And they won’t stop until every dissenting voice has not only been silenced, they have all come out in celebration.
I wouldn’t be holding my breath for that to happen. When it comes to ‘gay marriage’, my apathy knows no bounds.
The concept of marriage predates Christianity by quite some margin – so I’m more interested in what the druids have to day than this, or any other, church-inclined person.
Ah, Druids had a very simple position on promiscuous homosexuals or practitioners of such pursuits as bestiality.
They called it ‘Human Sacrifice’.
Go on – ask a Druid, but not one of the hippy drippy pretend ones.
😈
I hate to disagree,
But by reflex action, if Cardinal anyone-at-all says something in public, I’m liable to go and support the opposite camp. (Pun NOT intended!)
The RC church is truly vile and evil organisation …..
I prefer a pox on both their houses.
@ GT,
all this establishes is that you are incapable of rational thought, due to your blinding hatred of the Christianity. Given that on many occasions, Christians will take opposing views, you’ll find yourself richocheting around like a pinball.
XX Trooper Thompson says:
As with Greg below, your hatred of Christianity blinds you to rational thought. XX
Aha. So. NOW, to disagree is to “hate it”, is it?
Wank over pictures of Tomás de Torquemada do you? Same fucking attitude.
I don’t consider that comment much of a refutation of what I said. Indeed, that your mind, in searching for an image to attack me, fixes upon someone masturbating over a picture of the infamous inquisitor, rather confirms it.
Chaps, can we avoid the personal attacks, please? Ta.
Trooper T
I despise all religions, actually.
I am an escaped christian ..
But neither do I trust or want anything to do with either the religion of Dark-Ages camelherders’ myths, nor that of 19th-Century economists’ myths.
Never mind Bronze-Age camelherders’ …..
Look at the irrational and lying spoutings of the appointed “Baroness” Warsi, for instance, where “Secular” = atheist (not so) and “miltant” means – I disagree with your lies …..
So do I. Doesn’t mean that I will always disagree with their stance though. On this one, the Church is not only right, but there is an insidious attempt to undermine property rights and freedom of religion. If the church does not want its places of worship used to carry out ceremonies that are an anathema to its teachings, then it should not be forced to. To do so undermines both of the above.
LR
Actually, they are not being “forced” to do anything on their premises, nor is it proposed.
Their premises, their shout.
What the RC are tring to do is stop OTHER people, in other places, doing things they disapprove of.
You’ve got to remember that they lie as a reflex action ….