h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Writing in the Telegraph, the head Catholic in the UK tells a barefaced lie.

He says "In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women."

That is a lie. Article 16 actually states - "(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

That clearly says that men and women have equal rights, probably to stop religious bigots denying women equal rights.

He also said "If same-sex marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman?"

That would also make the teacher a liar. We have no interest in what a teacher "wants" to teach children, we have a quaint insistence that they stick to facts. Teachers who tell lies and make believe work in a "special" kind of "Sunday School".

And as for "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."

What the Is this creature delusional?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9121424/We-cannot-afford-to-indulge-this-madness.html

As you've stated it there, swl, it says that men and women have the right to marry.

I don't know whether that implies "each other". If so, then it's not granting men the right to marry men, or women the right to marry women, but it certainly isn't defining marriage.

With so many church leaders (apparently) now commenting on this, maybe the issue has something to do with perceived government interference on an "independent" club/body.

I seem to recall a while back some media fuss regarding possible legislation to enforce "fair" access to "religious schools" or something.

I think this is the crazier quote:

"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."

I really can't figure out what he's saying here. First of all, where is it enshrined in law that a child has to have a mum and a dad at all times? Then there's the conflation of marriage and having kids and there's the automatic assumption that with gay parents the birth parents won't see each other again yet with straight parents, they're together forever.

Then there's this:

"He claimed the change was "at the behest of a small minority of activists"."

Which is beautifully ironic when you consider that gay people could well outnumber the actively religious, depending on which numbers you choose for both populations. Gay folk certainly outnumber religious leaders and the latter are the ones who seem to be doing the bulk of the complaining.

And there's this flat-out lie:

"When these arrangements were introduced, supporters were at pains to point out that they didn’t want marriage, accepting that marriage had only ever meant the legal union of a man and a woman."

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I know a lot more gay people than the Cardinal and, when civil partnerships were introduced, almost all my gay friends were activists. Not one of them ever expressed the opinion they didn't want marriage because it was supposed to be between a man and a woman. The dominant argument by far was that civil partnerships were the best that could be gotten at that time: not enough but tolerable. There was another argument that said civil partnerships, bar one small legal difference, *were* civil marriages in everything but name. What he has claiming is a lie, plain and simple.

It's not just that he's deluded - I expect that from a Catholic cardinal - it's the ease and shamelessness with which he lies that worries me. Again, to be expected from someone in his position, but disturbing all the same.

Vomit-inducing that he's plying the "Won't somebody think of the little children" line given the history of his organisation with children.

"He claimed the change was "at the behest of a small minority of activists"."

Well, I think he's got something of a point here. One reasonable line of argument that could be taken is something like this:

Look, we've got no objection to the secular notion of a 'civil partnership' and for equal rights and status to marriage. We recognise that we live in a pluralistic, multicultural society, and although we have our views on homosexuality, we believe in a liberal democracy.

But (a) a civil partnership already has the same status as marriage; and (b) marriage is an institution with religious origins and significance, and has been between a man and a woman. So what's to be gained by allowing gay marriage when we already allow civil partnerships?

So I think what decides this debate will be whether or not supporters of gay marriage can show sufficient support and benefit for gay marriage over and above civil partnerships, compared to the strong opposition that some people clearly feel - mainly for religious reasons.

What are the arguments for gay marriage being such a significant advance on civil partnerships that it's worth overriding the strongly held views of another minority group?

I wouldn't say he's delusional at all (well, apart from his religious beliefs), I'd say he's a homophobic bigot looking for a peg to hang his attitudes on.

Typical conservative religious dude in other words.

Following on a bit,
Article 16 (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Again it's not defined, no doubt with full intention, as between a man and a woman. Interestingly for someone with supposedly a passing knowledge of the Bible, he doesn't mention the bits in it where marriage is between one man and all the women he can afford. Or the concubines. Funny that...

> He claimed the change was "at the behest of a small minority of activists".

Yes. Most changes are.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead (attrib.)

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071122082636AA50JA9 (Look: A good quality, well-sourced answer on Y! Answers. Miracles can happen!)

TRiG.

"I'm going to go out on a limb and say I know a lot more gay people than the Cardinal " [HonestIago]

I figure that the Cardinal knows alot of gay men, but he doesn't *know* that they are gay. I read somewhere that the Catholic clergy is roughly 25% homosexual. I can't even imagine how that figure was arrived at, but being a Catholic priest would seem to be a good career option for a yojg gay man, given that no one would *ever* try to make him go out with or matty women.

Sorry, "matty" should have been "marry."

Can I repeat the question I posed in post 6?

"What are the arguments for gay marriage being such a significant advance on civil partnerships that it's worth overriding the strongly held views of another minority group?"

I'm in favour of gay marriage, but I don't think the arguments are as overwhelming as some people here seem to think. The arguments for Civil Partnerships were overwhelming, but I think this one is much closer. I think the argument needs better care and more thought than just religion-bashing, ad hominem attacks etc.

Well the case against seems to be articulated by religious leaders using lies, twisting of facts and outright hatred. Anyone would think their case to be a weak one.

I urge anyone who can to get on iPlayer and listen again this morning's Today program, on which this wackjob is interviewed by a clearly barely able to contain himself John Humphries.

In answer to the subject line: obviously, yes, he's delusional, he's a Cardinal. Pretending that buggering boys is OK is part of his job description. Words cannot express the contempt I had for his sort BEFORE he came out with what he said on the radio this morning.

Similarly, use iplayer to listen to the radio Scotland phone-in programme from this morning. You'll hear a spokesman for the Catholics say homosexuality is caused by child abuse and such people are not normal and to be pitied.

Listen in amazement to people saying gays are evil and less than human.

In the very same breath they go on to say Catholics are being victimised.

Sorry, but ad hominems are the very least of the cardinals problems .

I have to wonder - why is anyone remotely civilised still a Catholic? What level of doublethink is required for an otherwise "nice" person to give their allegiance to an organisation which seems to be going out of its way to appear as evil as possible?

Otto, I think the compelling argument is that churches have no right to try and define marriage here: marriage was taken from the church a long time ago and is now a civil issue that the church participates in. Marriage doesn't belong to the clergy and, crucially, they shouldn't be allowed to exclude others from it.

Civil partnerships are close to marriage, but they're not the same. There are issues like not being able to play certain types of music during the ceremony and not being able to get married in certain buildings. It prevents congregations - notably Quakers, some Reform/liberal Jews and some Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu, Jain and Protestant groups - that want to marry gay people and have no religious issues in doing so, from marrying gay them. It's allowing the Catholic and Anglican churches to dictate doctrine to other religious groups.

Good government looks for reasons to ban something rather than looking for reasons to allow it. 'Because people want it' is an acceptable prima facie reason for allowing gay marriage whereas when you look for reasons to ban it, the argument/s look/s pretty weak: the only harm it causes is to people who've taken an unreasonable position on what marriage means and are attempting to dictate terms to others. That's not a good enough reason for a ban imho.

SoRB:

>>What level of doublethink is required for an otherwise "nice" person to give their allegiance to an organisation which seems to be going out of its way to appear as evil as possible?

I'm not myself a Catholic and never have been. But I understand that the answer would be that following the faith does not automatically equate to acquiescing to the hierarchy. The hierarchy may insist that they're in charge. Some of the laity may beg to differ.

An analogy (although not a complete one) might be with someone who doesn't renounce their British citizenship but who doesn't accept the legitimacy of the British government.




In Canada, I lived next door to a seminary. One of my housemates was a gay seminarian who used to spit fury at 'That bigoted Polish ba5stard!'.

Thanks HI, for your thoughtful response. Nice to read some argument rather than mere vitriol. I was aware that civil ceremonies (for gay or straight couples) couldn't include any religious references, but it didn't really occur to me what effect that might have. I remember thinking that it was unnecessarily draconian to exorcise any references - there's a lot of good stuff about love and marriage that's of religious origin. I suppose a religious group could conduct a civil ceremony on their own premises, but if that can't (legally) include any reference to the Big G, I can see how upsetting that must be for those with faith.

A relative is getting married soon, and is having to do it twice, because the law of the land won't let her have the wedding they want. So they're having a quiet civil ceremony in the morning to satisfy the law, and then doing the 'real' wedding - the declaration in front of friends and family - in the afternoon. Perhaps laws about marriage need a lot more liberalisation.

>>Perhaps laws about marriage need a lot more liberalisation.

Well, Jaysus! If marriage really is A Good Thing, you'd think they'd be letting anyone do it.