As a Catholic, I’d like to highlight the Christian view on marriage, and tackle some of the misconceptions that persist against this viewpoint.
The debate surrounding same sex “marriage” has received quite a lot of column inches and TV time of late and I think it’s fair to say the argument in favour centres on “equality”. Martin McGuinness has commented recently that SF is in favour of same sex “marriage” because “It’s the decent thing to do.”
Martin McGuinness, I believe, has made a boo boo here! The reason being, there is a hidden assumption and its implications are huge: a question that is not being asked in this debate is – “What is marriage?” Is it simply a marriage because a government says it is? Is it merely some sort of romantic commitment enhanced by sexual intimacy? Or is it, as those of us who are Christian believe, that marriage’s meaning is rooted in the human person, male and female? In this sense the question then becomes “Is it even possible for two men or two women to be married?” Decency plays no part, Martin, we cannot simply take for granted that two people of the same sex can automatically get married, no questions asked.
Gerry Adams has also been talking about gay “marriage”, he’s quoted as saying on Sinn Fein’s website this week that; “They (Gay citizens) want what we want – the right to live their lives as full and contributing citizens and to share in the love of a family of their own.” EH? A family of their own Gerry? That would imply that when they (Gay citizens) get “married” they’ll have children, which everyone knows is impossible. Maybe this is a shrewd heads-up for gay adoption down the line? Or maybe Gerry wants to redefine what a family is? I’m actually not too sure what Gerry is on about here, but this line of thought regarding family is another boo boo for the SF leadership. Gerry has inadvertently hit the nail on the head; marriage is intrinsically linked to the family.
Those in favour of retaining the current definition of marriage do so because they believe that marriage is a unique institution. It’s unique because only a man and a woman can create new life. No two men or two women can ever do this and in this sense it’s ok to treat different things differently; this is not discrimination, Gerry! I’m all for gay relationships having legal protection, but given the uniqueness of a man and woman’s union, it is illogical to equate a same sex union to that of a heterosexual union. They are different; it’s as simple and straightforward as that.
I believe marriage is our most important social institution and so does the Irish state; Article 41 of the Irish constitution states: “The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.”
In other words, the Family is superior to all positive law, even the Constitution!
Article 41 continues “The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.” and “pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.”
“…Marriage, on which the Family is founded…”
A same sex union can never fulfil this statement. To quote Dr Jacob W. Wood, “Although same-sex “marriage” masquerades as marriage, it cannot do the single most important thing that marriage does: create the stable nexus of relationships that serve as the building block of society.” Not every marriage produces children but every child ever born has had a mother and father. The ideal situation for raising children is in a marriage between a man and a woman, who love each other so deeply they commit their lives to each other, thus creating the most stable environment for raising children. Anyone disagreeing with this statement needs to view the stats.
So to the referendum on the 22nd May and to anyone reading this who’s eligible to vote; a final word of consideration! A Yes result will have the consequence of ensuring the meaning of marriage will remain forever malleable: who’s to say polygamy won’t become socially acceptable in the future? If so that too must be accommodated.
I say no! Let’s fulfil our constitutional promise and guard the institution of marriage with special care! Vote NO on the 22nd.
A Papal nuncio to Ireland in the 16th century commented that every priest thought himself a bishop and every bishop considered himself a pope. today things have changed little, in fact they may have got worse. Many lay persons consider themselves theologians with a hot line to God.
So Kieran in what way are you uniquely qualified to pronounce upon what constitutes marriage and what does not? You say only a man and woman can create new life. But there are many women who cannot have children and many men incapable of fathering a child. Should they and those who are past child-bearing age be prohibited from marrying. What of transsexuals or those of ambiguous gender?Should grandparents be prohibited from adopting the children of their own children should they be rendered orphans? Would children who are not chosen for adoption by a heterosexual couple be better left languishing in orphanages or raised by loving homosexual foster-parents.
You say if there is a Yes vote marriage will become ‘malleable’. Has marriage not always been so in practice? There have been loving marriages, marriages of convenience, marriages that are toxic. The Catholic Church campaigned against divorce. (Bizarre that a coterie of middle-aged and elderly celibates should feel themselves uniquely qualified to pronounce on any aspect of marriage and sexual love which they are forbidden to experience and of which they can know little) They campaigned against the legalisation of contraception against civil partnership. They lost. They will lose this fight. Even if a no vote prevails this time the move towards marriage equality is inexorable and will ultimately prevail.
You quote the-constitution but the constitution is a human device and can be changed by the democratic will of a sovereign people. You and your ilk are like King Canute always trying to brush back the tide. You have, of course, a perfect right to your own personal view of Marriage. By all means practise, it cherish it. If as you believe, it is a divine institution then what the civil authorities do is largely irrelevant. God will look after it in his own way and you can rejoice that you are have the real sacrament and others are living a lie.
Brian …I couldn’t have put it better myself ..I’m just getting lazy!!
Well, Brian, you pose the question does Kieran have the qualifications to discern what constitutes a family? Indeed one can ask that of any pope, theologian or priest. One can ask that of innumerable global societies, Christian, non-Christian and irreligious, across space and time, whose foundations were built on the sacred union of a man and a woman which was open to procreation. They instinctively knew that this came from the natural order of things and served as the best guarantor of a stable demographic and socio-political stability.
Of course there are men and woman who have fertility problems but they are a small minority compared with the procreative potential of the vast bulk of marriages. So why extrapolate from a tiny percentage and hope to generalize concerning it. Even if a man or woman in a marriage experience such issues, they still have the reproductive means to procreate which cannot be said about same-sex unions. So this does not detract from Kieran’s point concerning the innate, life-creating quality of a marriage as properly understood over millennia. Your point about grandparents taking on the rearing of their grandchildren as a result of some unforeseen tragic event, does not negate his argument either as they are the parents of the parents of those children and thus are directly in the family line.
The Catholic Church may have unfortunately lost the referendum on divorce legislation in the Republic but the consequences of such laws have proven to be devastating to millions of children on many levels as surveys consistently show. Statistics unfortunately are starting to show the ROI heading that way. Thus I would hardly call it progressive as no-fault divorce laws across western Europe continue to undermine the vital institutions of marriage and the family. Western societies will pay heavily in this age and the future for all their amoral radical attempts to redefine the very things which have been essential to the survival of global societies for so long. Maybe certain societies might learn something from the “King Canutes” before the cliff edge looms towards which they are heading
That’s a very dated definition of marriage you have there. The fact of the matter is that marriages, like christenings, are becoming increasingly secular ‘Occasions’. We’re a bit behind in Ireland, but in most of Western Europe it’s already the case that a marriage serves mainly as a social function and a celebration. The church venue and religious trappings serve as pomp and ceremony that highlight the significance of the commitment two people have made to each other.
It’s a tradition in the vein of presents and a turkey dinner on Christmas, costumes and trick or treating on Halloween, chocolate eggs on Easter, and the first (legal) pint on your 18th. A church ceremony and a reception as part of the ‘Wedding’ event, and then the appropriate documents are filed to make the ‘Marriage’ official.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s ignore all that and pretend that “…Marriage, on which the Family is founded…” is a coherent and relevant definition of marriage in the 21st century. Surely that begs the question: what is a family? The roots of the word are older than Christianity, and the concept predates language itself. All it is two or more people with close social bonds. You have a pack of wolves, a herd of elephants, and a family of humans.
I’m sure you know what I’m getting at by now, but I’ll state it anyway: having children is not a requirement for ‘a family’ to exist. Two people who have committed to spending their lives with each other is enough to satisfy the definition of a family. More than that, it’s enough to satisfy the constitution’s inferred definition of ‘family’; a marriage is between two people, not two people and their children, so if a marriage is the foundation of a family, it follows that two people who are married are a family, regardless of whether they have children or not.
Vote YES because nobody, not the state or any individual, should have the authority to deny a couple the right to become a family. They don’t have it in practice and they shouldn’t have it legally.
RDME,
a christening by its very nature is not a secular event, the parties, celebrations and general expense that some people indulge in have no relevance to the actual ceremony.
Furthermore a couple is not a family. A family in any dictionary is defined as a couple and their children.
Of course no doubt the thought police will ensure that that gets changed over time.
A gay couple in 100% of cases cannot become a family without the help of a third party this is comparatively rare in the case of a heterosexual couple.
Therefore a gay couple wishing to have a family will not have a marriage but in effect a menage a trois.
Marriage is not a human right, being loved by another is a human need but not a human right. Marriage is not there for everybody in life but those it is for are a man and a women.
You’re definitively wrong:
“In the context of human society, a family (from Latin: familia) is a group of people affiliated by consanguinity (by recognized birth), affinity (by marriage), or co-residence and/or shared consumption (see Nurture kinship)” and a group is defined as “two or more people”.
The Christian ‘thought police’ may have tried to co-opt the word and impose your definition over the last 2000 years, but thankfully the Church has lost its power over society and we’re getting back to the roots of the concept.
Would you be so kind as to let me know the source from which you quoted.
The definition of a family as I previously stated has been the accepted view in all religions and societies Christian, non Christian, pre Christian and those with no religion with few exceptions for thousands of years.
When in your experience has anyone had to defend themselves in court accused of being anti Christian?
I just wish to state that for me as Muslim I believe we are all, whether we are gay, straight, bisexual or whatever. created by Allah. I do believe that Allah loves us all equally and therefore as a believer in God I believe that we should respect one other. Of immense importance here is the conviction that a person’s sexual orientation is a private, personal matter.
Who would be the mammy and who would be the daddy or would they take it in turns. Do you not think growing up is hazardous enough without being the boy at school with two mammies/daddies? Marriage is a social arrangement where two people capable of breeding (usually) announce in public that they have come together to breed. God may not come into it. Would a same sex couple not try to influence their children (well,somebody else’s children) to follow their way of lfe? I know this is a step beyond marriage but adoption is down the road. If the justification is that it’s based on love and fair play and the ‘decent thing’ where does it stop? Some people love their petsore than others love their children. Will we legislate for them too? Do not persecute or discriminate but do not legislate for the abnormal to be made normal.
Give us all a break, Kieran. Please. Go live and enjoy your short time on this earth and allow others to do the same in all their beautiful differences.
Protected by Bunreacht na hÉireann?
Kieran, with respect, if you are going to quote from Bunreacht na hÉireann, I suggest you contemplate the evidence which exists to show how innocent children who needed care were systematically punished, abused and denied adequate medical care. Many children were deprived of an education and used as slave labour. We know now that children ended their lives prematurely in order to escape physical, mental and sexual abuse.
“I have supped on political horrors and have confronted political chicanery and duplicity in my time. Nothing I have experienced comes near to challenging the deep dishonesty…The Irish State bathed its hands in the blood of generations of innocent children tormented by prison warders…who were, in the main, nuns and brothers of different religious orders.” (Arnold 2009:19)
Kieran, can I applaud your well- thought-out post. You have really hit the nail on the head and I find that there is very little that I can add which would illuminate the subject further. In my view there is no question of any gay couple being denied equality. They already have full equality with the rest of society in a civil partnership. There is no way anyone can say that the union of two men or two women is equal to that of one man and one woman. One union has no possibility of creating new life, the other has, it is as simple as that.
Just a word to Brian Patterson, Brian the use of the word ‘ilk’ in the last paragraph of your post seems a little intolerant and does nothing to advance your viewpoint.
Having eavesdropped with due diligence on the debate, oops, conversation which has been conducted with extreme decorum down here south of the Black Sow’s Dyke / Ar thaobh na greine de Chlai na Muice Duibhe for the past two months, one’s head has been left up to this, in two minds.
That is, up till today. When the game changer of all g.c.s took place.
The reason for one’s indecision was clear, for the choice one was confronted with was as stark. as Koo’s nakedness no less.
And it was left to the silver-tongue eloquence of the Director of Amnesty International in Ireland to pare the topic of conversation down to the b. essentials:
Either
Vote Yes for courage, tolerance, decency, equality, love, compassion and modernity
or else
Vote No to all of the above.
Colm O’Gorman (for it is he!) is not just a big COG in the wheel that is Amnesty International in the global sense of that organisation but is also the go-to spokesman on all and every bone of contention (even to do with LGBT rights) within the islands of Ireland itself, going forward.
One’s reluctance to fully commit to the Yes side was, ni ga a ra, one’s diminutive David-like inhibition to follow behind in the footsteps of such a Goliath of generosity.
But, then, today all was changed, changed utterly, when a beautiful terror of feeling inferior was buried, again, going forward.
And not just in Drumcliffe Churchyard, beneath the brooding proximity of Osama Ben Bulben but, even more crucially, in an interview which, quite coincidentally, the Dea Ex Machina gave to the paper of record itself, The Unionist Times, earlier today.
One of course, is referring to Mary, not just the former Prez of the Free Southern Stateen, but the current Prez of the Condoleeza McAleeza Media Manipulation Corporation. It was a measure of her commitment to courage, decency, equality etc etc etc that Notre Dame in Notre Dame in the happily named South Bend selflessly crossed the wild and wet Atlantic way itself in an easterly direction to be among her subjects, going backwards..
Happily, for her and us, her Visit coincided not only with another Visit but also with the Referendum de dum to come. And coincidence it was, nothing more, nothing less.
Today she single handedly turned it into The Day of Two Charlies.
The first Charlie being of course the Prince (the artist formerly known as Colonel in Chief of the heavy metal band, The Para-normal Regiment) and the second ?
Listen up:
‘Martin’s father Charlie came to live with us and at first would have been your regular , b.s., Irish Catholic granda with attitude to gay people’.
It was that b.s. (initialled for the moment) which was the Wow ! moment which not only echoed another Wow ! moment but which clinched it for one reluctant Perkie re the ‘will I Yes or will I No’ dilemma.
But,first a point or two of clarification: the ‘Martin’ referred to is neither Martin the Manservant who might number, say, a vacuum cleaner amongst the tools of his profession or indeed, it is not even Martin Mansergh himself.
But rather the husband of Mary as in the regal ‘my husband and I’.and the house, of course/ ni ga a ra being that Prince of Houses itself (formerly known as the Vice-Regal Lodge).
And the pivotal ‘b.s.’ word. No, it was not that what is conventionally employed as an acronym but rather a different, b.s., one indeed which might even be classified as an anachronistic acronym.
One is referring to: (gulp) bog-standard.
Yes, Law Professor Mary’s Daddy in Law, name of Charlie, was a ‘bog-standard’ Irish Catholic grandda’. Her very own, intellectually distilled words.
Wow !
This is perhaps the most quintessentially Anglo-Saxon term of endearment in use on our neighbouring island when referring to inferior things. Its origins, by long now forgotten, obviously had their roots in the peaty prairies of Paddyland.
And it took a person of rare regal poise and unrivalled intellectual stature to, as the phrase has it, ‘bring it all back up, oops, home’. With these two words the Dea Ex Machina known as Mary paid due linguistic tribute in kind to the linguistic tribute which had been previously paid to her in the form of a ‘cupla focal’ by Elizabeth, her peer.
A veritable ‘Whatever you say, say something moment’.
And her subsequent gracing of Drumcliffe Churchyard with her para-regal presence was throbbing with poetic symbolism which was anything but bog standard. Even though all known geological surveys have shown that the surrounding hinterland is indeed, of the consistency, peaty.
Not just in her role as playing Maude Come Back to Maude Gonne but her lingering gaze on that headstone. The headstone which shows posthumous compassion for the opposition, which is almost preternatural in its nature:
-Horseman, pass by.
Yes, the equine population of the neighbourhood have been with all due consideration been put on prior notice that the victorious Rainbow Coalition will march in triumphant procession by Drumcliffe, come Saturday.
And then there is the echo of another Cliff, who morphed from being a failed drummerboy into being a successful vocalist, numbering among his innumeravle hits: ‘A Bachelor Boy’.
The bachelor boy relevant to the topic under discussion is, of course, Mary’s very own boy child, Justin. Or, Just-out Justin as he is now affectionately. Her Mac ex Machina, you might say.
And long, long before he exited the Closet, that Closet which has now achieved dimensions in excess, even, than the GPO in 1916, his Mam, ooops, Mum, oops, Mom had recognised his orientation.
Like when he, as a seven year old, requested from her, as a sort of surrogate Santa Clause the gift of a, erm, vacuum cleaner.
Said implement is indubitably destined in due course to become as iconic an artifact in Irish history as, say, The Galway Shawl, Daniel O’Connell’s duelling pistol, the Stone outside D. Murphys’s door, Padraig Pearse’s gammy eye, Molly Malone’s mussels and even, James Connolly’s wheelchair itself.
One understands, F. O Toole, artifact finder, is already in the process of bringing his tome up to date.
Having finally shed his bog-standard indecision Perkie’s inner B.S. Yeats has been left with no choice but to reminisce in rhyme and to allow his bona fides hang out. Even as he joins the Gay Liberace Movement:and inclusively embraces the very concept of Penal Servitude:
What then did Perkie Og W. aged seven
Ask of S.C. to help P. enter 7th heaven?
Call in J. Edgar Hoover
The Cold Case remover
Who might reveal: ‘a Kevin aged eleven !’
Way to Wow !
Just a thought, maybe everyone should be allowed to marry anyone they want, either we are all free or none of us are free. People who object to same sex relationships/marriage should be open and just say they are disgusted by the very notion of two men `getting it on`. It is the very mechanics of the thing, the rustle of two beards, the smell of two Condor filled pipes *other tobaccos are of course available), do they discuss the football during it? Does one of them mentally do the shopping list in their heads? Are either of them allowed to say they have a headache? When I was growing up homosexuals were a mere rumour, of course some film stars and singers were rumoured to be good with colours but they were not seen in public. As for lesbians, please. I loved the music of Queen but didn`t realise Freddie was gay. I now know some people are born that way, life is hard enough without being hounded for one`s sexual orientation. All churches condemn homosexuality, as they condemn adultery, but it is really none of my business what people get up to in their own home. I would be worried if the Church was forced to marry same sex couples, but if the state wants to marry them then that`s just the way it is. I have no time for people like Elton John and Stephen Fry, their hatred of the Catholic Church speaks volumes for their sense of fair play. The bottom line (sorry) is people are disgusted by gay people doing `it`, and that`s fine. If you don`t like it don`t do it. All I know is, if my son came in and told me he was marrying a man I would support him a hundred per cent, even though I would still consider myself a Catholic. There are more sins than sexual ones.
THE ABOVE PIECE WAS WRITTEN WITH A HINT OF SILLINESS AND WAS NOT MEANT TO OFFEND ANYONE.
Excellent stuff, Another Jude. I agree that if my son told me he was gay I would support him to the hilt, but I would worry for him too due to the existence and persistence of people like Paul Givan and their unchristian lack of compassion.
By the way, you’re Condor ready rubbed analogy was inspired!!
I’ll be voting no anyway,I think the government is in for a big surprise with the size of the no vote.
Change is difficult, but it is good… and it is even better when it broadens the lens of equality and brings greater inclusion to a sizeable minority group in our society. Change was good for society when women got the vote, and when black people got the vote, and indeed when our own civil rights movement fought for the vote for all here in the north – and in all these instances it was resisted…. Divorce was difficult for many to accept, but the sky didn’t fall down; and now the campaign for equal marriage for all regardless of sex, a difficult concept for many, is being decided by popular vote tomorrow in Ireland, the only country in the world that will have decided in this unique and democratic way.
I bring to bear on my daily life two key principles – respect and acceptance. I extend these principles to people of all faiths and none. My parents, who have been married over 50 years taught me these values. I expect and hope for the same principles to be applied to me. I am gay, and I believe in equality, and I want only the same respect and acceptance from Christians in society that I extend to them.
Kieran’s question “What is marriage?” I answer based on my knowledge of my parents relationship – it is a mutual vow of love and commitment between two people, to choose each other as life partners, to the exclusion of others. So yes Kieran we agree marriage’s meaning is rooted in the human person, I would add, whether that human chooses to commit his or her life and love to someone of the opposite sex or the same sex.
It is true only a man and a woman have the physiological attributes which when combined might produce a new human.
But Kieran you idealise the ‘creation of life’ as the key aspect of the heterosexual union – it is not. Many couples choose to marry, but not to have children…. the same will be true for gay couples who choose to marry, once the laws have been changed to reflect the increasing secular nature of our society.
Unmarried heterosexual couples, and single people, as well as gay people – whether single or in a couple, or in a civil partnership can apply to both foster and adopt children in Northern Ireland via the usual process. See news item – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-25332917
Children are of course one of the most precious elements of society and studies show – even a basic understanding of some of the hundreds of psychology books written on or referring to ‘attachment theory’ gives overwhelming evidence – that a child will thrive where he / she gets protection, support, emotional security and love, be that from one parent, two parents, and regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents. The No campaign argument that children have a right to a mother and father is hurtful to all the many children who don’t, and it is also nonsense. There is no such thing as children’s right to a mother and a father. There would be no way to enforce such a right (just ask the Child Support Agency).
Look to the many countries where marriage equality has been a fact of life – over the past 20 years for some countries – the meaning of marriage has remained the solemn and loving vow it always was, there is not a hint of polygamy in sight, and yes Kieran, the sky has not fallen in.
So Kieran, let’s hear it for equality, respect, recognition and social solidarity! Lets reinforce the institution of marriage for the good of the generations, both heterosexual and gay, that will follow. Vote YES tomorrow, vote yes for greater equality.