Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

[Lifelinking]

This time by asserting that the idea of same-sex marriage is grotesque and as morally questionable as reintroducing slavery. Yes, really

See this report in The Independent.

There is a related poll in The Telegraph here.

I very briefly contributed to a radio phone in about this today. For those interested the link can be found in my blog here

[Fia]

The Cardinal doesn't do irony, does he ?

[Lifelinking]

Apparently not Fia

[david house]

There is a co-ordinated campaign underway, led by the Catholic Church, to stop the extension of marriage to include same sex couples. The "Irish Independent" reported this speech as a "declaration of war by the Church". So much for humanists being aggressive!

I participate on a Catholic blog. Just to give you a flavour of how they feel, this is part of a reply I had on this subject today:-

but the FACT is that the Church teaches as dogmatically true and therefore infallible that Christ raised the union of man and woman to the dignity of a sacrament. Nothing - no law, no lobby, no growing movement of dissent even among Christians will EVER change this FACT -no matter how against the law even such a dogma might become [and I concede that such a thing might actually come about]
This is THE issue of our generation and in the history of human civilisation that must and will separate the wheat from the chaff ....it cannot be any other way....to deny true marriage is to blaspheme directly against the Blessed Trinity.....God will not be mocked!

This is an organised campaign and one that has to be countered. They are getting support from the traditionalists in parliament and it seems to be growing. We need to speak up whenever and whereever we get the chance.

[Alan H]

I mentioned this here and linked to Article 16 of the UDHR O'Brian misrepresented - deliberately or otherwise.

[Lifelinking]

Some really useful comments there folks. As Alan rightly points out same sex marriage reforms could be implemented without any contravention of Article 16 (and have been, for example in Spain).

[Dave B]

Good example of the difference between the (probable) intention and the actual wording. But it's the words that count.

[Alan H]

Good example of the difference between the (probable) intention and the actual wording. But it's the words that count.

Ot's more the fallacious logic I noticed:

(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.

This does not define 'marriage', simply defines one instantiation of it: that men and women have a right to marry. It does not say that marriage is a right only of a man and a woman.

It says:

P1. If you're a man or a woman, then you have the right to marry.

To imply - as O'Brian does - that it defines marriage is like saying (to use the usual syllogism example):

P2. If it's raining, then the pavements will be wet.

But there could be many reasons for the pavements being wet, only one of which is that it is raining, but there are many others (such as I've just washed the car).

Similarly, there are others, other than a man and a woman, who could marry.

If the intention was to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, then it could easily have said so. But what the writers (Eleanor Roosevelt, etc) thought about this and whether they realised the full scope of what they were writing, we may never know!

I'm not entirely happy with my syllogism example, so if anyone can express it better, please speak up!

[animist]

Ot's more the fallacious logic I noticed:

(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.

This does not define 'marriage', simply defines one instantiation of it: that men and women have a right to marry. It does not say that marriage is a right only of a man and a woman.

If the intention was to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, then it could easily have said so. But what the writers (Eleanor Roosevelt, etc) thought about this and whether they realised the full scope of what they were writing, we may never know!

I'm not entirely happy with my syllogism example, so if anyone can express it better, please speak up!

I don't think what you have said is syllogistic, but anyway it's right. O'Brien probably realised that he was misquoting and trusted people would not notice . To my shame (as someone who often quotes the name of the Declaration) I have seldom read it. It is of course very dated (1948) and comes from a time when male gay relationships were still illegal in the UK and would be for almost another 20 years. Pity that Article 2 did not mention sexual orientation, therefore, but not surprising; Article 1 is a more general and so useful declaration of human equality. This is a Wiki article that shows more recent attempts to tie in gay rights to the UN Declaration - no surprises at the extent and nature of the opposition to this!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_declara ... r_identity

[Dave B]

Good example of the difference between the (probable) intention and the actual wording. But it's the words that count.

Ot's more the fallacious logic I noticed:

(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.

This does not define 'marriage', simply defines one instantiation of it: that men and women have a right to marry. It does not say that marriage is a right only of a man and a woman.

That is what I meant. The drafter of the article may have meant that marriage is a union between a man and woman of full age etc. What it actually says is as you argue, both men and women have a right to marriage, but it does not specify to whom that union must be made.

[Tetenterre]

(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.

What it very clearly does not say is "...have the right to marry an individual of the other gender and...". I.e. whilst it does not specify that they may marry someone of the same gender, it doesn't proscribe this either.

[Alan H]

I don't think what you have said is syllogistic, but anyway it's right.

I really just meant the way I used the usual syllogism rain/wet pavement example, but I wasn't very clear! (I couldn't really decide if it would be better saying: "If the pavement is wet, then it must be raining.")

But I think you're right - 1948 was a VERY long time ago.

[Dave B]

I remember 1948(ish), just . . .

[Compassionist]

Why all the fuss about same-sex marriage? Same-sex civil partnership is already legal. What's wrong with same-sex marriage? I don't see any problems. Am I missing something? Please don't say it's because the Bible and the Quran bans homosexual relationships. The Bible and the Quran are flawed writings by superstitious humans, nothing more and has no authority.

[Dave B]

It's just that the word "marriage" has special meaning fro the reliogistas I think. Maybe they feel that using that word would give them the choice of either "downgrading" their use of that word or accepting that same sex unions were on the same moral level.

Do the RCs accept civic marriages as fully valid I wonder?

[Lifelinking]

First blog on latest 'evidence' provided by John Deighan http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=1532

[Nick]

It's just that the word "marriage" has special meaning fro the reliogistas I think. Maybe they feel that using that word would give them the choice of either "downgrading" their use of that word or accepting that same sex unions were on the same moral level.

Do the RCs accept civic marriages as fully valid I wonder?

The UDHR is concerned with the freedoms of people. To try to use it to restrict freedoms is ironic! The problem is that Catholicism (if I understand correctly) regard the union of a man and a woman in marriage as a sacrament. In other words that there is something holy about the relationship/institution, so any alteration of it is a defilement of their sacrament.

From what I understand, Catholicism regards civil marriages as merely a legal arrangement, and not as being a true marriage. They don't object, because they can't. But I think they would, if they could.

In some countries (France & Germany, I believe) a civil ceremony is a requirement, with a religious service as an optional extra. The legality and "sacredness" are entirely separate affairs. I have no more problem with them refusing to marry gay couples than I do with them refusing to pray to Mecca. That's not what they are about. But I have a huge problem with them trying to lay claim to civil marriage as a sacrament which over-rides its legal nature.

In some ways, it is strange, as marriage was not such a major part of the church, in England at least, until Tudor times. After all, weren't marriages conducted at the church gate, rather than inside? I must see if I can find some references....

[Nick]

Not exactly a reference,but I thought I'd lob this in from The Atheist Experience.

And the notion that marriage was a sacrament was only added into Catholic canon law at the Council of Trent, in 1563.

[Alan C.]

I just came across this from a link in a comment in one of the (numerous) articles on this subject, maybe the Cardinal should learn a bit more about his religion.
WHEN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WAS A CHRISTIAN RITE
Cross posting with old Nick

[Emma Woolgatherer]

In some ways, it is strange, as marriage was not such a major part of the church, in England at least, until Tudor times. After all, weren't marriages conducted at the church gate, rather than inside? I must see if I can find some references....

Yes, I remember the Wife of Bath saying that she'd had five husbands at the church door.

Ah, here's another one:

[R]eligion has had a strong involvement in the wedding ceremony only since the twelfth century.

It was not until the reign of Edward VI (1547[--][/--]1553) in England, and later in Europe, that weddings were allowed to take place within the church. Before that time, the important part of the marriage ceremony took place at the church door or in the church porch (Charles I of England, 1600[--][/--]1649, married Henrietta Maria, daughter of Henry IV of France, by proxy at the door of Notre Dame Cathedral), with perhaps a nuptial mass inside the church afterwards. Between the seventh and the twelfth centuries, the church began to establish its authority in questions of matrimony. Although efforts were made in the twelfth century for marriage to be included in the seven sacraments of the church, it did not have the status of a sacrament until 1439, which allowed it to be included in the Book of Common Prayer. It was only in 1563, after the Reformation, that the Catholic Church required a priest to be present at the marriage ceremony. James (1933) noted that Christianity was dealing with an established institution and had to incorporate established custom and law that had been observed by many generations into its own sacraments in order for the Christian marriage rites to be accepted.

In the Middle Ages, there were two distinct ceremonies. The first part, the sponsalia, in which the couple consented to contract the marriage, and the subarrhatio, which involved the delivery of the ring by the bridegroom to the bride and the promise of the dowry before witnesses. The second part was the priestly blessing of the marriage (the matrimonium), providing the sacramental and spiritual element ...

(From Marriage Customs of the World: From Henna to Honeymoons, by George Monger)

Emma