Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Speaking as a bigot




Silence continues south of the border, as far as the hierarchy are concerned (why is that?), in Scotland there are continued angry rumblings , now the focus seems to be on France as far as same sex marriage legislation is concerned.

I have been wondering about the statement Nick Clegg didn't make, but his advisors thought he should, that I am "bigot". There was some talk about a Mass here at St Mary Magdalen's for the Lib-Dems when they are here for their conference, it faded when I pointed out that we couldn't have a party big-wig "preaching" or "addressing" the congregation. Frankly, the Lib-Dems are so unpopular I felt that people would boycott the Church if we had a Mass for them.
But I would have enjoyed addressing "bigotry" in the presence of Lib-Dems, or even whether my views against "same sex marriage" actually based on my religious belief. The truth is they aren't. Yes I do believe some sexual practices are mortally sinful and I would rather people didn't do them, I believe the same about contraception, adultery and fornication, as well as defrauding widows and orphans and depriving workers of a just wage but I manage to live reasonably happily in an environment where that is taking place.

What concerns me above all is that government arrogates to itself the ability to define marriage, I am against it because I am a conservative, at least in this area but not in the area of the workers right to his or her wages, because of that I would have difficulty ever voting for Dave Cameron and his coetibus. Those who claim ssm will lead to bigamy, bestiality and every other possibility are most probably right, simply because governments nowadays rule by whim and seem happy to be involved in social experiment, what ever the electorate actually want or vote for. Tearing up the traditional concept of marriage is going to seriously undermine the idea of family. Every week I see children, desperate for love, whose lives have been damaged by divorce and family break-up.

For those bigots like me, we see that ssm is going to make traditional western (Christian?) teaching about marriage, but more importantly about the family (mum, dad and children), impossible in our schools. It is going to make children, traditionally, the result of a man and women bound together in marriage, merely a possibility, a lifestyle choice, rather than the natural consequence of marriage. This will damage not strengthen the family.

The parody of the gay couple not being able to decide between a poodle or a child seems to be where we are heading. Children begotten either through the natural process or by sperm donor in the case of a lesbian couple or by adoption or surrogacy in the case of a male couple are not a consequence of the relationship but an addition to it, bolted on to it. This is pushing children into the status of a commodity. This I find deeply worrying.

The "gay" catch phrase "if you don't agree with gay marriage, then don't marry a homosexual" or the governments continued promise that "Christians won't be forced officiate at same sex marriages" is just plain daft and disingenuous. A little like, "if you don't agree with drugs don't use them". This type of argument springs from the idea of "there is no such thing as society" that we are not bound together, that we do not suffer the consequences of one another's actions. Indeed this argument is really centred on the unimportance of the family in modern political and social thinking. It is part of the movement in society from "us" to "me". It is essentially egocentric and consumerist, I can't help but think that it is in this context that Cameron is for "gay marriage because he is a Conservative", it is Conservatism that smacks of decadent Capitalism, economic theory that sees human beings as individual consumer/production units, that pushes non-productive children to the margins.

SSM seems to me as much an assault on the family as the Chinese "one child" policy, it is within this context which has proved both disastrous and monstrous that this legislation is being introduced. The bigotry surely lies with a government that believes it has the right to control every human institution.

14 comments:

romishgraffiti said...

Pardon me while I head off one common suggestion at the pass. Often we here good and well-meaning Catholics advocating the State get out of the marriage business. Basically saying, "you secularists go over there and have your version of unions (don't call it marriage pretty please) and we Christians will go over here and have ours and never the twain shall meet and peace will rain in the land."

Leaving aside the problem of that approach (the biggest being the Zero-Sum Game, it should be noted that the Church has already chopped this idea's legs off. See: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Supertradmum said...

Well, Father, remember that the Romans thought we were heretics and dangerous to the empirical religion of the time and ergo, we were killed.

Since the collapse of Christendom, I think we are in for it. One can hardly speak the Truth to fellow Christians, and even some lib Catholics, much less the neo-pagans. Stay in the state of grace....pray for peace and patience and do good...

nickbris said...

As Cardinal Philippe Barbarin said in France today same sex marriage would herald a breakdown of society and eventually lead to incest and polygamy.

Outside of the political parties nobody seems to want what these mealy-mouthed political leaders are fighting for. Nobody apart from a few loud mouthed activists want it.

To settle the argument once and for all why don't they ask the people by way of a REFERENDUM

Chris Hinchley said...

>Those who claim ssm will lead to bigamy, bestiality and every other possibility are most probably right, simply because governments nowadays rule by whim and seem happy to be involved in social experiment, what ever the electorate actually want or vote for.

Are you hitting the Wine when you write this nonsense? It demeans you. You are seriously stating that two loving men or women who seek marriage together are on the same level as sex with animals? Are you?

Pablo the Mexican said...

God destroyed the two cities not so much because of the Lesbianism and Homosexuality practiced there, buy also their Society supported this behavior.

The final straw was that the inhabitants no longer resisted sin.

We are getting to the point of no longer resisting sin.

In the Modernist Church, these behaviors are tolerated and promoted.

This happens when a Sheppard allows his Sheep to wander.

Pretty soon, the Sheep think they are the Sheppard, leading others into error.


*

Fr Ray Blake said...

Chris I am saying when the government takes to itself the definition of marriage anything is possible, who, ten years ago would have believed we could be were we are now.

Patricius said...

Weren't our arguments against the introduction of civil partnerships dismissed on the very grounds that they were not a means of introducing same sex "marriage"?

What price democracy when our politicians habitually lie?

JARay said...

As a child I had two "aunts" who lived in the same house. One really was my aunt and the other was no relation at all but we all called both of them Aunt and treated them as such. This came about when they both were teaching in the same school and the one from Ireland needed somewhere to live so my Aunt told her that there was room in her house and she could share. They lived in the same house until nature took its course and death intervened. They were real friends to each other but there was never any funny business went on. They were both very, very good, practicing Catholics. They did have their arguments it must be admitted, but their friendship lasted and we (my brothers and I) loved them both as aunts. Their living together was one of economic sense, in sharing a property, and their friendship for each other was real and lasting. It was a good arrangement.
They both must be turning in their graves right now at the very idea of same-sex "marriage"!

romishgraffiti said...

Chris I am saying when the government takes to itself the definition of marriage anything is possible, who, ten years ago would have believed we could be were we are now.

Correct. The "zoophiles" (and incidentally, the pedophiles and incest proponents) are employing the exact same arguments as same-sex "marriage" proponents are and I've to see anyone offer a logical stopping point that wasn't arbitrary, or the phony doctrine of consent.

JARay said...

I must add a comment from here in Australia. I was delighted to read the news that a same-sex "marriage" Bill here, has just been defeated in our House of Representatives although there are two other Bills before The Senate and they have not yet been voted on. Our Prime Minister, who is herself in a de-facto relationship, voted against same-sex marriage. There is the predictable furor in that the Opposition, led by Tony Abbott, himself a well-known practicing Catholic, were not allowed a "conscience" vote by Tony Abbott and hence they all voted against the Bill. Tony Abbott takes quite a lot of stick for his Catholicism and there was even an attempt to slur his name this last week by claiming that he punched a wall on either side of a woman's head in intimidation....WHEN HE WAS A UNIVERSITY STUDENT some 40 years ago! A big song and dance was made about this on the TV only a couple of days ago. He denies that it ever happened but there are many who wag their heads and say that he is an aggressive, hot-headed man now, so it must be true!

John Nolan said...

A lot of people forget that the term 'paedophile' was coined in the mid-1970s by those who admitted being sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children (like a homosexual inclination, the Church would class this as an obective disorder). They formed the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and in those pre-internet days did their networking via the correspondence columns of The Guardian.

The founder of PIE was subsequently jailed for offences against children.

Fr Ray Blake said...

Yes, and a number of MPs and celebrities were involved with them and moves to normalise paedophilia.

If the scandals in the Church have done any good, it is to renew distaste for paedophilia.

gemoftheocean said...

John -- no. 'Pedophilia' was coined in the early part of the last century, the 'pedophile' was recognized in 1950-51

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedophilia

----
And Nick, the reason they don't ask for a referendum, is that they know it would lose. I PITY any real English conservatives.

you have nothing outside of UKIP that remotely resembles a right of center party -- you have Cameron and his hacks, socialist lite with NO cultural conservatism to be found, then left wing, and Marxist.

tempus putationis said...

Homosexuals have the same rights as the rest of us: they can marry already. Not each other, though, clearly. That would be silly.