Catholic leader calls government's gay marriage plans 'madness'

A Catholic church leader has called the government's plans for gay marriage "madness" and a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right".

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Catholic church in Scotland, also accused the coalition of trying to "redefine reality".

In an article for the Sunday Telegraph, he says the prime minister is a "passionate" advocate of the change and told his party two years ago he supported gay marriage "because I am a Conservative".

O'Brien wrote: "Since all the legal rights of marriage are already available to homosexual couples, it is clear that this proposal is not about rights, but rather is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists.

"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.

"Other dangers exist. If marriage can be redefined so that it no longer means a man and a woman but two men or two women, why stop there? Why not allow three men or a woman and two men to constitute a marriage, if they pledge their fidelity to one another?"

The cardinal has added his voice to those of leading figures in the Coalition for Marriage, a group of bishops, politicians and lawyers opposed to the changes. The group's supporters include Lord Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury. He urges people to respond to the government's consultation on the proposals by signing a petition in support of traditional marriage.

Earlier this week the Home Office defended the plans after the Tory MP Peter Bone called them "completely nuts".

A Home Office spokeswoman said the government believed that "if a couple love each other" and want to commit to a life together they should "have the option of a civil marriage irrespective of their sexual orientation".

The equalities minister Lynne Featherstone is due to launch a consultation on the plans later this month.

Margot James, the first openly lesbian Conservative MP, criticised the "apocalyptic language" used by the cardinal and accused him of "scaremongering".

She told BBC1's Andrew Marr Show: "I think it is a completely unacceptable way for a prelate to talk.

"I think that the government is not trying to force Catholic churches to perform gay marriages at all. It is a purely civil matter."

She added: "I think this sort of scaremongering is what it is, it is just scaremongering."

Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman, said she hoped the comments would not end up "fuelling or legitimising prejudice".

She told the Andrew Marr Show: "We have had prejudice, discrimination and homophobia for hundreds of years. That doesn't make it right."

"I don't want anybody to feel that this is a licence for whipping up prejudice."
(from Guardian)

this from the church that openly protects paedophiles x gay marriages hurt nobody unlike the some of the preists within the catholic church x

What about the children that these weird people 'adopt' and bring up as their own. Are they not going suffer the comments of their school mates and grow up in a totally confused mental condition ?

That revolting Elton John is already expressing his 'concern' over this very thing. Pity he did not think of it before involving an innocent child in his disgusting lifestyle.

No more confused than gay children growing up with hetrosexual parents. As for suffering "comments at school" that is just what was said about inter-racial marriages a few decades ago. "Think about the mixed race childen they will suffer insults from both sides". The answer is [of course] to tackle that bigotry head on not to avoid taunts by giving in to such small minded nonsense. As for gay people adopting children - I think that all the evidence is that they will do far better than growing up in care.

i totally agree peter...how is it a disgusting lifestyle kingcole its no more disgusting than any other relationship..i have many gay friends and they are more caring in many cases than so called ordinary couples ..

I've never met a gay child in my life but i've met plenty of gay adults. For me that says it all.

You've never met a gay child? I'm amazed. Of course young children are - thank goodness - not yet sexual beings, hetrosexual or homosexual. But once the hormones start to do their stuff in later childhood its often very clear whether children are gay or straight. Those who are gay can find it very difficult growing up with parents who are homophobic.

what some people dont realise is that men r born gay it isnt a lifestyle choice..when i asked one of my gay friends what age he was when he he realised he was gay he told me 9 yrs old..

To me homosexuality is repungent and I object to being told that I am not allowed to think so. Rights activist seem not to be able to, or not want to, understand that under that same principle of rights, people have the right to hold opposite views to theirs and to express them without being threatened by the PC brigade.

A Man U player has today been fined for making a so called anti-gay comment. This is totally wrong, he is entitled to his opinion and, provided he is not advocating any physical harm to anybody, should be allowed to express it.

If you want to indulge in such practices, fine go ahead, but stop flaunting it in front of everybody else at every opportunity. I have no idea whether any of my friends or relatives are gay and nor am I interested in knowing, it is their business not mine.

I think you are missing the point. Of course you are free to think whatever - indeed it is really an involuntary act in some ways. On the other hand if you express those thoughts and others find them to be obnoxious or bigoted then they equaly have a right to challenge your stance.

Nor do I think that the acid test of what bias is acceptable is whether a person advocates actual physical harm. Is it acceptable for people to slag off jews or blacks? Of course if people are anti-semites or racists then that's what they are but their opinions are deeply hurtful to people who haven't made a choice to be what they are. Likewise with gays. If that bigotry is not challenged then attitudes would never change in the way which - thank goodness - they have over the last generation.

Also - to return to the starting point of this thread - it is a bit rich for the Catholic Church to take the moral high ground given their recent record.

So if I disagree with you about anything, that makes me a bigot does it ?

I am deeply offended by being called homophobic, little Englander, Europhobic, etc etc and all the other insulting names that the PC liberal left invent for anyone who opposes their 'right on' views. So how about castigating them as well.

I don't think I am PC. I uphold and support your right to hold your views. However others have an equal right to disagree with you. And I would have thought that anybody who says "To me homosexuality is repugnent" is by definition homophobic.

As for the word bigot. I am genuinely sorry if I offended you but my understanding of that word is that it refers to intolerance of those different to ourselves. On that basis I think anti-gay rhetoric is promoting a form of bigotry.

I somehow think we are going gto have to agree to differ on this subject.

Therefore by that definition gay rhetoric is also a form of bigotry, as they are intolerant of my views and actively try to suppress them.

But yes, we will agree to disagree. Best regards to you.

A lot of interesting points raised on this one.
Firstly, we have to look at the word 'marriage' itself. In the view of the Christian churches, it is defined as the joining of a man and woman. So I am told, anyway. That being the case, I understand that they would be opposed to marrying two people of the same gender. Surely though, even if it was made legal by the government, the Catholic church (or any other) could refuse to perform these ceremonies. Not so long ago (perhaps even now), the church would not marry divorcees. Would it be too difficult for the law (if passed) to call it a 'civil union'. That way, everyone would be kept happy.
I was disappointed to hear someone say that anti-gay comments should be allowed as a matter of free speech. There is a huge difference between voicing an opinion and stirring up hate or causing personal distress. Just a few days ago, I read a news article about the distress caused to many disabled people in this area. From name-calling to actual physical assault (one person was tipped from his wheelchair). Is this the sort of acceptable behavior that 'free speech' can create?
Ironically, I have found that most racists/homophobes have little to shout about when it comes to their own morals.
I do, however, agree on the point that all too often, the gay 'agenda' is forced on everyone. Maybe it's a backlash to not so long ago, when it was still illegal. Much the same as the 'Black Panther' movement, still stuck in time with their cries of oppression. While they were playing hard-done-by, the likes of Condoleezza Rice, Herman Cain and Col. Allen West were becoming highly successful, looking forward rather than backwards.
I think someone is playing into the hands of the liberals, who always purport to be the saviors of minorities when, in actual fact, they create more divisions in society than acceptance.

A good post. One point though, about the Church being able to refuse to marry gay couples. Receantly a court judge found AGAINST a boarding house owner to refused to allow a gay couple to share a room.

So would not this set a precedent in all similar cases, including the Church ?

I am a bit confused (what's new) my late husband was under age (in the eyes of the Church at 19) RC and Italian and I was AC - when his mother found out I was not RC she would not forward the necessary papers - but a quick trip to Canon Kemp (where we had booked the marriage) and he sorted it out - RC priests are not able to marry a couple (which ever gender) the Registrar has to be there! so we went to the Greffe and had the deed 'done' by the Greffier (no paperwork required) and on the day of the 'marriage' (a month later) we went to St Stephen's church for the blessing (no one noticed the difference in the wording) so why not do that with same sex couples?? We had a Civil Ceremony and a Church Blessing....They would.just have to find a church person willing to do a blessing!!!

a gay marriage is just what it is called ..in law it is a civil union.....kingcole you are in a wheelchair so in all probability you have come across cruel jibes aimed at you ..thatis the way of the world..i know my daughter faces jibes every time she goes to town ...being gay isnt a choice it is there at birth ... you would have been the last person that i wd have thought of as being bigoted against another person.

Steady on This' I aint quite in a wheelchair yet, maybe one day but not yet I hope.

I have never suffered any jibes about this or even about my deafness, which I have had since about 2 years old. Nor should I be called bigoted for for not kow towing to PC views on every subject.

If I ever heard anyone insulting your daughter because of her problem I would give them a right rollocking and so should you.

I do not indulge in micky taking and name calling anybody. I just don't like homosexuality and hate having it constantly flaunted in public. Hetrosexuals don't, so why should they ?

sorry i thought you were in a chair.where is the gay community flaunting themselves in public..yes they hold hands etc but so do hetrosexuals..may i say you are missing out on some of the best friends anybody could have..as a woman i dont have to be anybody but who i am ..i would trust my gay friends to the end of the earth and back again..

Gay Pride parades, constant bitching about their rights, always pushing for more and more and actively seeking publicity etc.

As I said before, I have no idea whether or not any of my friends are gay and I wouldn't want to know. None of my business.

whats your opinion on lesbians then kingcole .gay pride.........towns and cities throughout the land hold parades of one kind or another..the unions constantly bitching about the rights of workers,,how are they actively pushing for more rights ..they are already allowed to be joined together in a civil ceremony so why cant the church allow it to.

Straight people don't have Hetrosexual Pride parades. I thought homosexuality or gayness encompasses women as well as men.

I have several gay friends and not one of them would go on a so called 'Gay' march it just isn't in their nature! IMO it is not the ordinary everyday person who does this marching - it is a case of a group of gay people bringing disrepute on all! Happens in life all the time , not everybody who goes to a football match is a thug or a hooligan - a twisted few make it appear that way! So IMO if those people who march and have Gay Pride rallys were hetrosexual they would still find a way to be noticed it is what they like......ATTENTION!!! (also the Press really love these groups, it gives them something to write about) !!!!!!

try reading the story of this gay guy from the 2nd world war kingcole...

http://www.whof.net/2012alanturingyear.htm

I know all about Alan Turing, seeing as how I live just a few minutes walk from Bletchley Park. So what is your point ? His achievements had nothing to do with his sexuality.