Catholic cardinal criticises gay marriages plan

[Tank]

Catholic cardinal criticises gay marriages plan

The government's plans for gay marriage have been criticised by the most senior Roman Catholic cleric in Britain.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, said the plans were a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right".

He said the idea of redefining marriage, which David Cameron has said he supports, would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world".

He said it was wrong to deliberately deprive a child of a mother or father.

So a 73 year old celibate man who wears very odd clothes passes an opinion on something he has never experienced and never will!

[Stevil]

He added: "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'.

rant rant rant...

[Sandra Craft]

He added: "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'.

rant rant rant...

You know, it just astonishes me how social conservatives seem to have no concept whatsoever of "consent" so that they're able to compare accepting a marriage they disapprove of with accepting slavery.   Astonishing, and more than a little scary.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, said the plans were a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right".

I wonder which right this is, the universally accepted right to legally interfere with the lives of people you have a philosophical disagreement with?

He said the idea of redefining marriage, which David Cameron has said he supports, would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world".

And that's another thing that astonishes me about social conservatives -- how they seem to be missing the fact that the marriage is already being redefined in and by society, and this is just the law catching up to existing social change.

He said it was wrong to deliberately deprive a child of a mother or father.

I may have no more right to an opinion on this than the Cardinal since I rarely had a mother and father at the same time while growing up, and when I did it was worse by a far cry than life with a single parent.  So, while I can accept that for some people this was a good thing in their lives that brings them happy memories, it seems to me another bit of social engineering that isn't really essential.  Particularly considering how rare double parenting is in the animal world, where most offspring are raised by the mother alone or by the entire pack.

I know some people argue about the high rate of single mothers among men in prison, but to me the fact that men in prison also tend to have a high rate of violent or unstable childhoods regardless of the number of parents they had, and were often raised in poverty are more overwhelming factors in an adult life gone wrong.

[Asmodean]

He said the idea of redefining marriage, which David Cameron has said he supports, would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world".

I'm part of the world and my opinion of the UK would improve if the plan is followed.

[Ali]

He said the idea of redefining marriage, which David Cameron has said he supports, would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world".

I'm part of the world and my opinion of the UK would improve if the plan is followed.

Word.

[Harmonie]

Hasn't marriage been redefined many times? Like if we actually followed the Bible's definition of marriage, it would not be anything like it is in modern day society. And, of course, marriage isn't even of Christian origin to begin with.

[Sandra Craft]

He said the idea of redefining marriage, which David Cameron has said he supports, would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world".

I'm part of the world and my opinion of the UK would improve if the plan is followed.

Word.

Unfortunately I'm sure he means "shamed in the eyes of people who's opinions matter because they agree with me", he just wasn't being clear about it.

Hasn't marriage been redefined many times? Like if we actually followed the Bible's definition of marriage, it would not be anything like it is in modern day society. And, of course, marriage isn't even of Christian origin to begin with.

Since this also doesn't agree with the Cardinal's view, I think it's safe to assume this fact is being swept under the rug along with Asmo and Ali's opinions.

[OldGit]

What Tank said.  What the hell do these loonies know about the things that obsess them most?

[Asmodean]

Unfortunately I'm sure he means "shamed in the eyes of people who's opinions matter because they agree with me", he just wasn't being clear about it.

Ah, but those people are not The Asmo. If they were, they wouldn't be agreeing with him... And me, I'd go with The Asmo before some old ass priest.

[Stevil]

He said it was wrong to deliberately deprive a child of a mother or father.

I may have no more right to an opinion on this than the Cardinal since I rarely had a mother and father at the same time while growing up, and when I did it was worse by a far cry than life with a single parent. 

What this has to do with gay marriage is anybody's guess.
Is he implying that there is a child that won't be conceived because gay people no longer make babies once they get married?
Or is he going a step further, worrying about a gay couple adopting a child? But wouldn't two mothers or two fathers be better than no parents at all?

[DeterminedJuliet]

He said the idea of redefining marriage, which David Cameron has said he supports, would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world".

I'm part of the world and my opinion of the UK would improve if the plan is followed.

Yup, looks pretty good from here, too.

[Sandra Craft]

What this has to do with gay marriage is anybody's guess.
Is he implying that there is a child that won't be conceived because gay people no longer make babies once they get married?
Or is he going a step further, worrying about a gay couple adopting a child? But wouldn't two mothers or two fathers be better than no parents at all?

I'm guessing the second one is the concern, that and having a baby the natural way (or semi-natural way thru in vitro) and then raising it in a same-sex parents home.

[The Magic Pudding]

Oh wouldn't this forum be a boring place without such crazy nutters?

"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."

Excellent point your most reverendness.
If parents have one child they can give it the maximum amount of parenting.
Having two children is going to deprive the first child of some parenting.
We know contraception is evil so once you have one child just stop all that evil sex stuff.

He added: "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'.

I don't think you people here appreciate the danger the cardinal has identified, if this law goes through we will all be forced into gay marriage. 

"Would such worthless assurances calm our fury?

He accused ministers of attempting to "redefine reality" and "dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage".

A celibate priesthood seems to produce a disproportionate number of paedophiles.  And then there are all those other crazy ideas only such unnatural types could think up.  Opposing condoms, geez even the Catholics that attend church disregard the crap these guys come up with.  Nasty old manipulative celibate priest, STFU, the time when society heeded parasites like you is past.

[Beachdragon]

"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."

Excellent point your most reverendness.
If parents have one child they can give it the maximum amount of parenting.
Having two children is going to deprive the first child of some parenting.
We know contraception is evil so once you have one child just stop all that evil sex stuff.

[/quote]

A priest explained to me once (I was trying to marry my first husband in the Catholic church to make it "official"  Good thing it didn't happen) that every time we had sex it was solely for the purposes of procreation.  That we had to pray to get pregnant every time.  If one of us was unable to produce a child, then marriage would be invalid. 

That if anyone who couldn't have children, such as a disabilit,y married, then the marriage would be invalid.  And that we couldn't practice abstention because that was against the meaning of marriage.

So, basically, if you can't have a kid, no matter who you are, your marriage isn't valid.

I wonder what they think of older couples who can't have kids, such as people in their 80s?

[Sandra Craft]

A priest explained to me once (I was trying to marry my first husband in the Catholic church to make it "official"  Good thing it didn't happen) that every time we had sex it was solely for the purposes of procreation.  That we had to pray to get pregnant every time.  If one of us was unable to produce a child, then marriage would be invalid. 

That if anyone who couldn't have children, such as a disabilit,y married, then the marriage would be invalid.  And that we couldn't practice abstention because that was against the meaning of marriage.

I remember a huge fuss being kicked up here in LA many years back when some local Catholic priests refused to marry couples where the groom was a disabled vet and incapable of procreative sex.  Three such couples got together and tried to force the issue but it went no where and I assume the couples either used a Justice or went to a non-Catholic cleric.

Altho this stance is consistent with Catholic philosophy, I think it's another case of society out-growing the laws, in this case religious laws.