Sunday, 7 October 2012

Please: Let's Stop this Ridiculous "Defence-No-Defence" when we face the Abolition of Marriage



The Same-Sex marriage 'debate' is no such thing...nor is it about a redefinition of marriage.

This is a campaign for the abolition of marriage and the enforcement of all presently-married couples to be downgraded to civil partners...

Legally as well as doctrinally marriage doesn't exist until consummation [or sanation at death]
...and homosexuals don't engage in activities which can be legally termed as 'consummating acts' [and realise it would be ludicrous and futile to even attempt to construct a sexual criteria]

Therefore lovemaking has to be removed from the very definition of marriage itself.
Hence - in the name of equality - everyone is going to be forced to be in civil partnerships.

Marriages will cease to exist.

Civil partnerships will simply be renamed as 'marriage'

So this isn't anything about 'rights for homosexuals' - it's about the removal of the rights of married couples to be married...they must become civil partners and be 'equalised' into conformity.

Simple really...so why aren't  Catholic commentators and 'defenders of marriage' saying this?

Is it too culturally insensitive?

Is that why our media-representatives are misrepresenting the very nature of marriage on news programmes and public debates etc?

Saying the Purpose of Marriage is 'to have and raise children' when that's not the purpose of marriage - the purpose is a loving physical and spiritual union - the aim/end is for that love to overflow into children [hence infertile couples fulfil marriage's purpose but are unable to naturally attain the end  - whereas for homosexual couples fulfilling the purpose is intrinsically impossible - they can't consummate their love!]
...and certainly we can appeal to the benefit of marriage to society and the raising of children - but we are expressly forbidden from using these society improving arguments  as utilitarian justification to say same-sex couples cannot get married.

It's gravely immoral to say the status quo benefits me so irrespective of something's rightness or wrongness - they can't have it! That's anti-abolitionist rhetoric!

We are losing the public fight for marriage - and why?

Because marriage's so-called public defenders don't know what marriage is, don't understand what the Church teaching is [and even if they do they won't use it because this is a 'secular issue',] and as with virtually every other moral issue in the public arena over the past few years - have repeatedly proven they are ill-informed, inexperienced and ultimately bloody useless!

No comments: