Catholic leader Cardinal Keith O'Brien clashes with David Cameron on same-sex marriage plans

  • Thread starter Thread starter pepipop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Santi2 said:
I was watching it as well. Janice Atkinson-Small did manage to raise that there is an extremist factor within the gay lobby and distrust of purported safeguards for faith communities. She was spot on. The gay lobby campaign is equal choice. If and when legislation is enacted to include same sex couples, all other laws, rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of that legislation will be repealed, amended or modified accordingly. It only takes a Catholic member of the radical gay wing to challenge the Catholic Church on the back of equality laws. And, it only takes a gay affirming legislator to propose and secure an amendment at the eleventh hour to remove or modify safeguards.
Click to expand...
Yes, I noted she tried to make this point. I don’t really understad the rest of your post (i’m not government/legislative minded), but no doubt you are correct. Although the CC itself will never condone SS marriage, so I do not see how removal of ‘safeguards’ would apply to the CC’s position? (As I say I’m not sure what you mean). I’ve no doubt it will become ‘legal’ in the UK at some point though.
 
MrT said:
You are entitled to have any perverse fantasy you wish but I’m not sure this would be the place to share it. Beyond your homo imaginings about pedophiles, there is no respected scientific link between pedophilia and sexual preference. If we love the church we need to face hard facts, not to feed our fantasies.
“The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.”
psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
How would our Lord view the false witness of vilifying a minority group vs. the way of the truth and the healing of the children? Hubris or humility and contrition? The church has taught us well. The cardinal’s statements sadden us all.
Click to expand...
I think the Cardinal’s statements reflect his devotion to the teachings of the Church regarding the Sacrament of marriage. However, you are correct about the empirical research concerning child molesters. Old myths such as most homosexual men are child molesters die hard.
 
GWright said:
In the declaration of universal human rights, marriage is stated as right and is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.

The Cardinal is saying no-one has the power to subvert this definition.
Click to expand...
I agree that is what Cardinal O’Brien wrote in his essay which appeared in the Telegraph. However, I think he is reading things into Article 16 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights which aren’t there.

Here is Article 16, in its entirety:
Article 16.
Click to expand...
Code: 
(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.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Click to expand...
un.org/en/documents/udhr/

While Article 16 does say that men and women have the right to marry, it doesn’t say that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Nor does it say that two men or two women shouldn’t be allowed to marry and found a family. And, the way Article 16 is written, it certainly allows for polygamy.
 
Dale_M said:
I agree that is what Cardinal O’Brien wrote in his essay which appeared in the Telegraph. However, I think he is reading things into Article 16 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights which aren’t there.

Here is Article 16, in its entirety:

un.org/en/documents/udhr/

While Article 16 does say that men and women have the right to marry, it doesn’t say that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Nor does it say that two men or two women shouldn’t be allowed to marry and found a family. And, the way Article 16 is written, it certainly allows for polygamy.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a generic statement of a human right, and without doubt at the time of wrting it would never have been envisaged that two men or two women would ‘marry’ and bring up a family as by the ‘law of nature’ that is impossible. Negatives or ommissions from the article, as to other interpretations of ‘marriage’, cannot then be seen as being a human right. It also does not say that a man and woman from the same family cannot marry (i.e. incest), which is illegal in most countries.
 
Article 16 is vague. It doesn’t define marriage (or family, for that matter) While it recognizes marriage as a right, it doesn’t really say what that means.

And Article 7 says there should be equality before the law, without discrimination
UN Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 7.
Code: 
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Click to expand...
 
Dale_M said:
Article 16 is vague. It doesn’t define marriage (or family, for that matter) While it recognizes marriage as a right, it doesn’t really say what that means.

And Article 7 says there should be equality before the law, without discrimination
Click to expand...
But two people of the same sex not being able to marry is not discriminating against them. It means changing the lifelong definition of ‘marriage’ between male and female for procreation and rearing children in a safe environment (see to Webster definitions above).

SS couples cannot procreate, fullstop. So to redefine the term ‘marriage’, as has been recognised throughout the centuries, could be seen as discrimatory against the original meaning of marriage and all heterosexual marriages.

Gays have equal rights, whatever that means, as they are human beings and fortunately they cannot be predudiced against due to their visual appearances, i.e. as has been and is still is the case of the abhorent discrimination against different races, by skin colour. If no-one is aware that someone is gay and why should they be - i.e. no-one knows if someone is celebate unless the person tells people - they have the exact same rights as anyone else.
 
Dale_M said:
While Article 16 does say that men and women have the right to marry, it doesn’t say that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...
It did not have to define marriage as between “man and woman” because the word “marriage” was given their natural and ordinary meaning at the time the UDHR article was drafted. The challenge to its interpretation is a fairly recent phenomenon as a result of the gay lobby campaign for same sex marriage.
 
pepipop said:
But two people of the same sexmarrying is not discriminating against them. It means changing the lifelong definition of ‘marriage’ between male and female for procreation and rearing of children. SS couples cannot procreate, fullstop. So to redefine the term ‘marriage’, as has been recognised throughout the centuries, could be seen as discrimatory against the original meaning of marriage and heterosexual marriages.
Click to expand...
I didn’t mean to argue in favor of same-sex marriage. My point was that Article 16 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights didn’t explicitly say what Cardinal O’Brien wrote about. He was reading into it values and beliefs which are not mentioned.
 
Dale_M said:
I didn’t mean to argue in favor of same-sex marriage. My point was that Article 16 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights didn’t explicitly say what Cardinal O’Brien wrote about. He was reading into it values and beliefs which are not mentioned.
Click to expand...
I see your point, however see the last two posts before this one. It is heterosexual ‘marriage’ that is being discriminated against, i.e. a universal right.
 
Not sure Cardinal O’Brien makes such a good ‘poster boy’ for the cause any more!
 
Heathcliff80 said:
Not sure Cardinal O’Brien makes such a good ‘poster boy’ for the cause any more!
Click to expand...
Probably not. However, until your post, this thread had been dead for two years. I am not sure there is any point in resurrecting the discussion. The Cardinal’s problems are well-known already.
 
Nothing surprises me what come out of David Camerons mouth, he will bend backwards to stay in power, doesn’t change the fact that from a Catholic position it is morally wrong and against Gods laws to allow same sex marriages, no-matter what way he tries to butter it up !
 
Slaney said:
Nothing surprises me what come out of David Camerons mouth, he will bend backwards to stay in power, doesn’t change the fact that from a Catholic position it is morally wrong and against Gods laws to allow same sex marriages, no-matter what way he tries to butter it up !
Click to expand...
It’s disappointing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top