The Coalition for Marriage has taken out adverts and is putting banner advertising across a number of websites. It wishes to "protect" the word and institution of marriage.
I question their motive. Protect marriage from what and for whom? It's not as if anyone is wanting to force people to marry same sex partners; the desire is simply to open marriage up to same sex couples - and what is intrinsically wrong with that? Who is going to lose out? Who will suffer as a result?
I suspect it has much more to do with a reactionary desire to control others - and, more importantly, marginalise some.
The Advertising Standards Authority is apparently to investigate a Coalition for Marriage advert in Country Life Magazine that claimed 70% of people support keeping marriage as it is, following accusations of it being both "misleading" and "offensive". The Poll was commissioned by Catholic Voice, an organ of a deeply secretive and reactionary organisation with world domination as its aim and having tentacles throughout the establishment around the world.
I suspect most people don't actually give a stuff, as it simply won't affect them one iota - not even the clergy, as the change is not centred on marriage in church. However, opening up marriage will make a significant minority very happy - but that's not the objective of the Catholic church, which has a tradition of spreading misery and oppression wherever it goes. Perhaps the Catholic church needs to reflect a bit on its own problems before telling others how to run their lives.
I suspect most people don't actually give a stuff, as it simply won't affect them one iota - not even the clergy, as the change is not centred on marriage in church. However, opening up marriage will make a significant minority very happy - but that's not the objective of the Catholic church, which has a tradition of spreading misery and oppression wherever it goes. Perhaps the Catholic church needs to reflect a bit on its own problems before telling others how to run their lives.
No, this is to do with nothing more complex that a desire on the part of some to impose their way of living and their 'morality' on others. It's a control issue.
28 comments:
"No, this is to do with nothing more complex that a desire on the part of some to impose their way of living and their 'morality' on others. It's a control issue."
Couldn't agree more Bill - just a pith the rest of the article is bullshit. And I should know!
and a _pity_ I can't spell!
And I thought you had a lithp....
PS - which article? Mine?
Alas yes, dear heart.
And while the "Coalition for Marriage" is doing it's tacky stuff the We-Love-Elton-John society is advertising ITS message on 1000 London buses. So who is trying to control/impose on who? - or should that be whom?
Live and let live, say I. The man-woman marriage thing is important and shouldn't be messed with, and frankly what is the point of changing the institution? To appease a minority of a minority? Apart from that I don't care what the Eltonites do with their naughty bits as long as they don't expect me to stand round and applaud.
Okay, If marriage is so sacred to the few, what about all these religious folk who have affairs,and commit adultery are we suppose to overlook these things because they are good christians. Kettle black comes to mind.
And by the way, lets go back to jumping the broomstick and wearing rings and call that marriage. Why should the church have the monopoly on what is and isn't marriage. I'm sure when mankind first came up with the idea of chosing a lifelong mate... the Christian Church wasn't even on our fair shores
'Live and let live' I say. If people are good, honest and true in all things then let them be.
But that's my point - opening up marriage will make not one jot of difference to the way you live your life, yet the Coalition for Marriage is making out the world will end and people will be forced into gay relationships as a consequence.
That's a Daily Mail attitude.
For the Coaliton for Equal Marriage, it's not about control, but acceptance.
"people will be forced into gay relationships as a consequence"
Really? I think what worries at least some is the fear that they will be legally forced to sanction sexual practices of which they disapprove. Given the nonsense which forced perfectly good RC adoption agencies to close, that fear appears to have at least some grounding in reality.
"For the Coalition for Equal Marriage, it's not about control, but acceptance."
Who are they to control what the rest of us accept?
The whole thing seems to me like a squawking-match between the paranoid on both sides - witness Jarmara above.
Ermintrude: You personally don't have to accept anything; you will be at liberty to remain just as you are, firm in the belief that gay marriage is something that frightens children and horses.
However, if gay marriage is legalised, then many other people will be free to live their lives on an equal basis, regardless of your views about them.
The current situation means they are not free to do so, while you are. That cannot be just.
"However, if gay marriage is legalised, then many other people will be free to live their lives on an equal basis, regardless of your views about them."
Well you are assuming that I'm straight here Bill ...
In terms of law gays can live on an equal basis already. Civil partnerships have done that, quite rightly. But given the state of equality legislation, some, not all of them religious, may well be forced to offer both services and approval against their conscience. Recent history suggests that this is not an unfounded apprehension!
I found this paper useful - and it doesn't employ religious arguments at all.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155
PS - I deeply (and irrationally) disapprove of people who put gnomes in their gardens, but I would not for one instance seek to prevent them from so doing, as their habit has no real effect on me whatsoever (other than offending my irrational sensibilities).
Ah - common ground!
I'm going to have to learn to use the "reply" link, rather than just posting, as we seem to be posting at exactly the same time, resulting in a confustication of sequence.
I haven't had time to read the entire paper, but the central conclusion is: "The insight that pair bonds make little sense, and uniquely answer to no human need, apart from reproductive‐type union merely underscores the conclusions for which we have argued: Marriage is the kind of union that is shaped by its comprehensiveness and fulfilled by procreation and child‐rearing. Only this
can account for its essential features, which make less sense in other relationships. Because marriage uniquely meets essential needs in such a structured way, it should be regulated for the common good."
I refute that in its entirety. Hay and I have no intention of reproducing, yet we wish to get married. Totally infertile couples still wish to get married, despite it no making biological sense. Pair bonding and marriage serves purposes beyond mere reproduction.
Sorry, but if gay people get married isn't going to make me want to become Gay... nor my son... nor my best friend etc. Gay don't wake up one morning and say oh I think I will be straight from now on. Get real!
Hey, I'm all for equality for all. If some people want to marriage in a church then let them, but only if they wish to abid by the rules of that church, if the church is against same sex marrying in their building then you can't.
Why should everything be changes just to suit everyone. You can't bend the rules just so no one feels left out, just like you can't turn a Mini into a Rolls-Royce. Oh yes, it may have the same four wheels and a drive, but it will never be the same. If gay people want a white wedding and all the trimmings then they should find another building and have their own style of white wedding, but not expect an religious building accommodate their belief.
Marriage is about more than the building in said your vows in. I have gay friends and I'm not anti anyone.
What I don't understand is why everyone feel they can just shout 'It's just not fair, and expect everything to change things just to suit their wishes.'
If gay want to get married have a life together fine. Get married have a life together who is stopping them.
People have the right to chose, but don't expect everyone to agree with them. As long as we can agree to disagree and still live in peace is all I want in life.
Peace be with you
Read on ............
The underlying objection is so obviously about control and fear of the out-group that it hurts. For monotheists to bleat on about discrimination against them by secularists on the one hand and so blatantly hold and promote discriminatory views like this is beyond hypocrisy.
I can't understand why Christians (or Muslims) feel that they "own" the concept of marriage? The most common justification for such thinking (as usual) is religious i.e. my particular sky daddy says it's immoral to do x or y. People were loving, pairing-off and having kids long, long before Christianity or Islam was invented; such a view has no basis in logic or indeed morality.
Being gay should simply be made an official religion and hey presto the Government will automatically respect it - problem solved; and just think how colourful the churches would be :)
Wow! Never had so many comments.
Getting married in church is not the issue. That's not what's being asked for.
Even I can't get married in a church!
I think we should start a petition to have the law changed such that garden gnomes are outlawed as deeply offensive to gnomes.
...and moral decency (not to say aesthetics too)...
Did - a lot of "thin end of the wedge" arguments, which are red herrings. The issue under discussion is gay marriage, not marriage to animals or incestuous marriages.
Time will tell!
You must demonstrate causality - B necessarily following from A. I doubt there would be a lobby for marrying one's pet, or one's son or daughter. Bit embarrassing, to say the least.
Which was what the point was I was trying to make in my comment... If the gays had their own building which was the symbol of their way of life i.e faith, if that what you want or need to call their way of life. They could then get marry and baptize their children etc.
I can't see how recognising Gay people for being human and wanting a family life is going to make everyone else want to be gay. Well apart from being happy, which is about as Gay as I'm ever going to get.
If gay people want to get marry and have children then let them.
I think reasonable probability is enough to justify concern of the thin-end-of-the-wedgery type.
A quick trawl produces
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6424337.stm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2522175/posts
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/senate-approves-bill-legalizes-sodomy-and-bestiality-us-military
I think the point of the article I pointed to is that the man-woman-marriage-family thing is an important ideal (and empirically best for the kids statistically) around which confusion and misunderstanding should not be created. I think that's right.
Well, incest between parent and sibling invariably entails a degree of coercion. Brother and sister is merely a cultural taboo with added implications for inbreeding.
Marriage must be between consulting adults - animals and objects obviously aren't in a position to give informed consent (although Hay is prepared to make an exception in my case).
Ermintrude: Seems Catholic adoption agencies are still operating - http://www.catholic-care.org.uk/what_we_do/adoption.php
Post a Comment