Holy Father, please can you give us another word for man and woman’s sacramental union? My government has ruined ours!

It is now likely that militant homosexuals will succeed in hijacking the word ‘marriage’ to describe their fictional  unions, with the connivance of David Cameron, the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties, and their fellow travelers in the media. Therefore, we need to distance the sacrament of marriage from the ruined understanding of the word. Hence the appeal to Pope Benedict XVI, ‘Holy Father, please can you give us another word for man and woman’s sacramental union? My government has ruined ours!

So far readers of Protect the Pope on twitter have suggested a number words or phrases to replace the word ‘marriage’:

Wilf Jones writes ‘maybe we should just always use the latin word nuptias to distinguish our concept from theirs?

Mark Thorne writes ‘It could become the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and all official Catholic literature revised accordingly.

Towardsthetiber writes ‘Holy Matrimony. They *can’t* claim the authority of the Church, surely?’

Hamish Redux cautions ‘Whatever word we use, marriage/wedding/nuptials/espousal/wedlock/, it will be hi-jacked. Then we lose husband/wife as well.

Protect the Pope comment: We need to drop the word ‘marriage’ to refer to the sacramental union of husband and wife for the sake of our children growing up in a society that has ruined the meaning of the word. The political elite and media clearly expect our beliefs to die out with our generation, so they have their eyes on the next generations. Stonewall are already targeting schools and school children to make them ‘resistant’ to the truth. We need to find ways of protecting our children from their social engineering. Words are vital in this struggle to protect the truth of marriage.

68 comments to Holy Father, please can you give us another word for man and woman’s sacramental union? My government has ruined ours!

  • Harry Reddick

    Sacramental Marriage. That is its most important aspect

  • Michael Petek

    How about ‘heterobonding’.

  • Karla

    There is part of me which agrees with changing the word because it has now been hijacked and changing it would make it much simpler in terms of understanding real marriage and in Catholic education and literature to have another word other than ‘marriage,’ which has has been hijacked, would distinguish real marriage from legal fiction marriage. Another part of me thinks we shouldn’t just because they’ve commited this distortion into law, we shouldn’t succeed. When I way it up I probably go with the former, I agree with a change. I think its important now as gay ‘marriage’ seems go from country to country and a man hada civil union 2 women in Brazil, polygamous marriage is now on theh horizon as civil unions were first legalised for gay couples and now ‘marriage,’ that Catholics around the world need to distinguish true marriage in language that can be used in our teaching, our writing etc

  • Karla

    Can Christians still have Holy Matrimony?

    ‘That’s that then. Marriage will change, one way or another. Progress has won. Cue lots of right-on politicians talking about how proud they are to have ushered in such a historic reform. But what about the losing side? What should those Christians who believe that marriage must by definition be a union of man and woman do now? Accept and move on, I suppose. The best response is surely not to bleat on about a sinister ‘Orwellian’ state. But there’s another way. Since the politicians have changed the meaning of a word for political gain, perhaps Christian leaders should play the same game. They could move the definitional posts again, ditch the word marriage and talk only about ‘Holy Matrimony’ instead? Sounds ludicrously old-fashioned, I know. But read me out.

    Matthew Parris argued very effectively in this magazine that the state should follow the South African example, ‘withdraw from the dictionary business’ and give exactly the same civic recognition to same-sex and hetero couples. The Catholic writer George Weigel, meanwhile, has urged the Church to remove itself from the secular marriage business altogether. But neither of those scenarios looks likely, especially since we have the Church of England. And now that our government has insisted on re-interpreting the M-word, maybe it’s time Christians did something equally radical, only this time by regressing to an older word. It’s not as if traditional marriage is thriving under its current definition. By emphasising the sacred and formal nature of Christian marriage, the words Holy Matrimony – even if they sound fogeyish now – might help steer the conventionally minded towards taking it more seriously.’

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/02/can-christians-still-have-holy-matrimony

  • Nix

    I think ‘Holy Matrimony’ is good. We definitely need to use another word, now this one has been stolen. ‘Nuptias is also very good indeed’. That way, we could use it across the world.

  • Karla

    ‘When dads hit the dance floor trying to be hip and trendy, everyone else cringes with embarrassment. It’s the same with David Cameron’s modernising push for gay marriage. A new poll of LGBT people reveals that almost two thirds flinch at his motives. They think he is pushing the policy for the politics, rather than the principle. He’s trying to look hip and trendy, but he just looks fake and phoney. He’s a disco dad.

    …. Embarrassed by seeing their leader trying to bop like a teenager, party activists are leaving in their droves. Membership has plummeted by more than half since he became leader, and over 70 per cent of remaining members believe the issue of gay marriage is tearing the party apart. But it’s not just the foot soldiers who are quitting. Experienced local association chairmen have quit too. We’re talking about people with years of experience who have been faithful to the Party for decades. No leader of any organisation can afford to lose people like that.

    … Ultimately, [Cameron] is hoping that his disco-dad moves are a vote-winner. It’s not working, according to polling which shows gay marriage could cost him 1.1million votes and up to 30 parliamentary seats. Much of that support is now going to Ukip, which has recently overtaken the Lib Dems as third most popular party. Gay marriage is a prime factor. ‘

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mike-judge/camerons-disco-dad-push-gay-marriage_b_2590284.html

  • ms Catholic state

    The word marriage is meaningless now….and so is marriage. It’s not really worth the paper its written on. God help anyone getting ‘married’ today. So the sensible thing is to offer the real deal to society….Catholic Holy Matrimony!!

    • Haslam

      speak for yourself. Mine is far from meaningless.

      • ms Catholic state

        Yeah…but the meaning of your marriage is purely subjective and illusory now, and not recognised by the law of the land. Let’s face it…now marriage means that gender, faithfulness and consummation are of no relevance…neither is the longevity or otherwise of the institution.

        To you, your marriage may mean everything….but to wider society I’m afraid they can take it or leave it. And that’s the upshot of divorce, contraception and gay so-called ‘marriage’ (which is marriage now but which has had its former meaning gutted). It’s a shadow of its former glorious self.

        • Haslam

          It’s recognised by me, my wife, God, the Church and my friends and family. And it’s recognised by the state when it comes to practical things that matter to me and which one day I may need to avail myself of like inheritance, insurance, next of kin hospital visiting rights, parental responsibility, compassionate leave from work etc etc.

          I’m not sure that I like the idea of the state taking an interest in personal matters like consummation anyway.

          My opposition to gay marriage is based on the idea that marriage is not something the state should be offering to same sex couples, the idea that it is a threat to my own marriage is never something I have understood.

          Imagine a landlord owns a block of flats. He rents one flat to me to live in and one for immoral purposes because it is used as a brothel. Legal contracts cover both arrangements. Now, I would prefer the state did not enforce or recognise the contract for immoral purposes. And I have a right to say so. But at no time is the validity of my perfectly moral contract threatened by the existance of a parallel immoral contract to which I am not a party.

          Does that make sense?

          • ms Catholic state

            so you don’t think that gender consummation and fidelity should matter to wider society?! I certainly do….and that the law should take them into account. Of course what happens before the eyes of God is matter most….but this is the very reason that wider society should acknowledge them…because they matter in the eyes of God.

            Also how can you object to SSM…if you want no legal acknowledgement of gender and consummation in a marriage?! It doesn’t make sense. Marriage should not be offered to SS pairs…as gender and consummation are of the essence of marriage. To say that both versions of marriage can run paralled to each other is a false notion. As both will be given the same ‘rights’. Maybe even SSM will be favoured above hetero marriage. There is no limit to Satan’s wickedness.

  • ms Catholic state

    The Roll of Honour….those brave and good souls that voted against gay so-called ‘marriage’. I don’t suppose it was easy for them. Let’s pray for them and thank God for them.

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/isabel-hardman/2013/02/the-tories-who-voted-against-gay-marriage-full-list/

  • Christopher

    How about we keep the word Marriage and remind those imposters of what they really do not have and can never have? Marriage is between one man and one woman, period.

    • ms Catholic state

      We could do that…and I’m sure that’s been done in the various countries where SSM has been legalised….but I think it is time to do a little verbal gymnastics ourselves. We have nothing to loose. But of course, increased prayer and practise of the Faith is most important too.

      May the Holy Spirit guide us.

      • Christopher

        No, we stand our ground. They already wanted a monopoly on the word happiness (‘gay’), how about we actually fight than retreat? The only verbal gymnastics are when one forsakes reality and embraces insanity, seeing as how a good portion of this parliament has done so. The reality is Marriage is a Male-Female singluar relation, that is one Male one Female only. Marriage has been the terminology for over a millenium, and there is no reason why one should jettison it for another word. The imposters are to be constantly reminded, day in and day out, every single hour that what they have is nothing more than a faux, a fraud, because even as the law may state that 1+1=3, in reality, the law and those who advocate such are wrong.

        Stand your ground, it still has to go through the House of Lords, and may God have mercy on our Souls.

        God Bless.

        • ms Catholic state

          I do like the courage and defiance of your stance….but I also think that like St Paul before he faced eventual martyrdom…we should try other avenues first ie legal challenges, name changes etc. With the power of prayer…Satan’s plans might just be twarted.

          If not…then we will have to face the final consequences with fortitude.

          • Haslam

            I agree with Chris that we shouldn’t abandon the term “marriage”. But if we want to emphasis what we mean by it we could call it “Catholic marriage”.

        • Karla

          I admire your stand Christopher but I feel I want to stand up against this change and differentiate real marriage, Holy matrimony and the title ‘marriage’ which has legally and morally distorted. Calling real marriage Holy Matrimony immediately differentiates the 2, and that is very important, and it also gives a seriousness and formality

          • Karla

            BTW it would be good if we had some Catholic consensus on this

          • Dr Mark Thorne

            Dear Karla,

            I agree with you (and I must thank you, Deacon Nick, for including my Tweet in your post – much obliged and grateful), I think it would helpful to show the counter-cultural attitude of the Church, which is becoming ever more needed, if we were to standardly use a term other than “marriage” in an atmosphere of the terminology of marriage becoming so diffuse as to be meaningless. The special aspects of what marriage signifies in the Catholic Church need to be emphasized and promoted. Of course, it won’t prevent the interference that is going to be heading our way from the State to try to conform to their pared-down redefinition of marriage, but perhaps, if the European Court of Human Rights were ever to become involved in a legal challenge, it may help the case of the Catholic Church if the additional characteristics that exist in our special appreciation of marriage, even relative to other denominations of the church that are “nearer” to us in outlook and theology, were highlighted.

            Christopher and Nicolas raise some potentially good points concerning the sacramental aspects of marriage – although my understanding was that, in cases where permission or dispensation from the Bishop for the marriage to take place are required (paras 633-637 of the Catechism), those marriages are considered to be valid(ated) in the eyes of the Church, and therefore they are also “made to be” both Sacramental and Holy? It would be good to have clarification of this point.

    • Nicolas Bellord

      I agree with Christopher that we should stick with the word “marriage”. Holy Matrimony and Sacramental Marriage surely refer only to marriage between baptised persons which has been raised to the status of a sacrament. See Catechism para 1601.

      It is the Government who have tried to sell the idea that there are two kinds of marriage “civil” and “religious” and that therefore they can fiddle around with civil marriage as if it was entirely theirs. In fact marriage is something which neither the State nor the Church can change as to its essential but merely regulate.

      We must be careful not to buy into the Government idea.

  • ms Catholic state

    Like all godless secular governments….our government are only liberal in matters sexual. Everything else will be subject to state control freakery.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2274388/MI5-install-black-box-spy-devices-monitor-UK-internet-traffic.html#axzz2K2A26HVY

  • Peter

    I’ve just stumbled across your web site. As a long standing practising catholic i welcome yesterdays vote in the commons. Thank goodness for sense to break out, all people are welcome to the magnificence of marriage, one day and i know it is a long way off it will also be celebrated as a sacrament between gay people. peter

  • Lionel (Paris)

    A “pair of homosexuals” / Une “paire d’homosexuels”
    What may seem strange in this case, is that in Britain those are conservative who present the bill while in France they are socialist. This means that being more or less freemasons, ultimately, they all agree with each other and pretend to express disagreement to distract the gallery… This is absolutely disgusting!
    In addition, a “gay couple” cannot exist, because if we refer to the terminology of “Good Use”, assembling two elements of the same type does not make a “couple” but a “pair”. Twins of the same sex are a “pair of twins” and not a “couple of twins” and so on…
    So they are all wrong from a to z.

    Ce qui peut paraître bizarre dans cette affaire, c’est qu’en Grande-Bretagne ce sont les conservateurs qui présentent le projet de loi alors qu’en France, ce sont les socialistes. Ce qui signifie qu’étant tous plus ou moins francs-maçons, en définitive, ils sont tous d’accord entre eux et font semblant de manifester un désaccord pour distraire la galerie… C’est absolument pitoyable!
    Par ailleurs, un « couple homosexuel », ça n’existe pas, car si l’on se réfère à la terminologie du « Bon Usage », l’assemblage de deux éléments de même nature ne constitue pas un « couple » mais une « paire ». Des jumeaux de même sexe constituent « une paire de jumeaux » et non « un couple de jumeaux » et cetera…
    Ils ont donc tout faux de a à z.

  • Karla

    Bishop Egan: Re-defining marriage in the UK “Orwellian”

    ‘The British House of Commons yesterday passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage with the support of Prime Minister David Cameron. The bill enables same-sex couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies, provided that the religious institution consents. The proposed law was strongly opposed by the Catholic Church.
    Emer McCarthy spoke to the Bishop of Portsmouth, Philip Egan about the issue.

    “Naturally, I am very disappointed that Parliament wishes, in an Orwellian manner, to redefine the concept of marriage for England and Wales,” said Bishop Philip Egan, of the Diocese of Portsmouth. “The proposed change will have catastrophic consequences for marriage as an institution, for family life in Britain, and for all human relationships, not least among our young.”

    Bishop Egan said the proposal could affect how the Church deals with civil marriage.

    “One possible consequence of this is that the Church will be forced to withdraw from the civil registration of marriages, as in some European countries, where couples fulfil the civil requirements in the Town Hall before heading to church for Matrimony,” he said.

    Listen to an interview by Emer McCarthy with Bishop Egan:’

    http://www.news.va/en/news/bishop-egan-re-defining-marriage-in-the-uk-orwelli

  • Karla

    UK bishops decry advancement of ‘gay marriage’ bill

    Read more: http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/World.php?id=6971#ixzz2K9K3NcYT

  • Daisy

    Christopher writes “The reality is Marriage is a Male-Female singluar relation, that is one Male one Female only”. So on that basis King David and King Solomon can’t have been married as they were both polygamists.

    • Christopher

      Daisy: So on that basis King David and King Solomon can’t have been married as they were both polygamists.

      Entirely incorrect. Polygamy functions as a plural of Male-Female singluar relations, this is because the One Man, One Woman premise is still being fulfilled. King David and King Solomon were indeed married, quite a few times (hence the ‘poly’).

      God Bless.

    • Nicolas Bellord

      The Old Testament is full of appalling stories but it is a great mistake to believe that such as David and Solomon are to be regarded as models of virtue. They both did good and bad things. The OT is the story of God trying to get people to behave themselves and the setbacks sometimes seem to exceed the progress! I hope it is not a delusion to think that we have moved on a bit!

  • Tjtm_25

    ‘Real marriage’?

    • ms Catholic state

      That sounds good to me. Catholic Holy Matrimony for Sacramentally married Catholics….and Real Marriage for heterosexual monogamous, first marriage, non-Catholic couples.

  • Tjtm_25

    ‘Sacramental Marriage’ is also good! I know that I cannot, in all good conscience, call something ‘marriage’ when it isn’t….but that’s where our persecution will come. God give us the graces to stand up to this nonsense.

    ‘ Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful
    And kindle in them the fire of your love.
    Send forth your Spirit, and they shall be created,
    And you shall renew the face of the earth. Amen.

  • Claire

    How about you all stop being so bigoted and leave gay people alone. No religion has the monopoly on marriage (not yours not any) – it is a union betwen two people who love each other

    • Christopher

      Dear Claire,

      Leave Homosexuals alone? Homosexuals picked the fight, they will get a fight, thrusting an uncalled for policy upon a population that finds such acts intolerable. Cameron did not mention it in his election polciy, he has decieved millions. 1.5% of this population somehow has a greater right than a greater percentage that opposed the change? He is a liar to even say that he advocated it when he clearly did not. If you think that this issue is entirely a religious issue only, then you’re going to have to issue this complaint against the secularists who advocated against, the Protestants, my fellow Catholics, and even those homosexuals who even opposed such polciy. Are you suggesting that homosexuals who opposed this are themselves bigoted against themselves?

      So, you say marriage is a union between two people who love each other? One supposes one will be seeing you soon support incestous marriages and padeophilic marriages? Afterall, if they ‘love’ each other, why not? Obviously there is more to marriage than love.

      Do please actually rationalise what you’re going to say before making those self-righteous cries of ‘bigot’, it does nothing but damage the caller him/herself. Either bring something to the debate and be rational about it, or to be quite frank and blunt, sit down and be quiet. Name calling is left to children, not adults.

      God Bless.

      • Haslam

        “Cameron did not mention it in his election polciy”

        Not strictly true. See the document below published by the Tories BEFORE the election:

        http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/05/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/Manifesto/Equalities-Manifesto.ashx

        SSM, wasn’t exactly emphasised but it was mentioned in this docuemnt published alongside the manifesto.

        • Christopher

          Cameron denied it three days before the vote on Sky News, he explicitly said he was ‘not planning’ to.

          Still an act of dishonesty and deception.

          God Bless.

        • Nicolas Bellord

          The document you mention was published three days before the election and Cameron denied that he was planning for SSM that same evening. The document can hardly be described as being published alongside the manifesto which came out at least a month previously.

        • Christopher

          Dear John Dare,

          One has no intent nor desire to patronise the opposition.

          God Bless.

        • Christopher

          Dear John Dare,

          Perhaps you would then like to demonstrate where one has been patronising to Claire? The only person being completely patronising here is you John Dare. You fail to address the commentator by the full name, a respect that is de facto standard towards any individual as one has shown complete respect in addressing you. Nor have you taken the time to rebuke your fellow man in actually demonstrating where and when one has been patronising, rather just stating one mere word and then completely leaving it at that. Further more, rather than actually stressing the absence of intent or desire to patronise, you reply in a mocking manner. To patronise is to speak in a lower attitude towards the opposition, one has demonstratably has not. Only you, John Dare, are behaving in an inappropriate and condescending manner.

          God Bless.

  • Claire

    Hate crime and Incidents
    A hate incident is where the victim or any other person perceives prejudice or hate to be based on someone’s

    •disability
    •race
    •religion or belief
    •sexual orientation
    •gender or gender identity
    as you can see this list (from this site) says that you should not be prejudiced against people on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity so why not leave the gay people alone and do something constructive about things like homelessness and poverty – things the church – well any church- should be concerned about…

    • Christopher

      Dear Claire,

      Do please show examples of prejudice and ‘hate’ against homosexuals. Is opposing homosexual marriage a form a ‘hate’ or ‘prejudice’? Then are you then arguing that homosexuals who have spoken out and opposed it while being homosexual are somehow prejudiced against their own practises while openly practising them?

      To be quite frank, Homosexual acts are seen as Sinful (One of the Four Sins that Cry to Heaven for Vengeance), and is part of the religious beliefs of Protestants, Catholics and Muslims alike. To discriminate against this belief, or religion is a discrimination and a ‘hate’ in itself. Logically, you have commited a prejudice against people on grounds of religious belief.

      God Bless.

    • Karla

      Opposing redefining marriage is not homophobic or a hate crime. Using that is an excuse to shut done any reasoned debate about marriage. Catholic teaching says on homosexuals:

      2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [Cf. Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10], tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”[Cf.

      They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

      2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

      2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

      Does that speak to you of homophobia which means to fear homosexuals? Of course not

    • ms Catholic state

      Well Claire we Catholics could claim a lot of hate crimes have been committed against us! We must start keeping tabs on them from now on. Often I feel for young Catholics in the work place and feel they must endure much hatred and bigotry. I could be wrong….but it maybe time to start examining their predicament.

      We must support all Catholics…especially our beloved young Catholics.

      • Claire

        I see that no one replied to my comment – why not leave the gay people alone and do something constructive about things like homelessness and poverty – things the church – well any church- should be concerned about…

        you need to get your minds off other peoples love lives and do something Christian and helpful for society – help the poor and homeless for example….

        “Is opposing homosexual marriage a form a ‘hate’ or ‘prejudice’?” YES IT IS If you can’t see that you have a problem – the law upholds the rights of gay people to be themselves. To be religious is a choice to be gay is not – it’s how you were born…

        If you don’t approve of gay marriage remember not to marry someone of the same sex….

        “To be quite frank, Homosexual acts are seen as Sinful (One of the Four Sins that Cry to Heaven for Vengeance), and is part of the religious beliefs of Protestants, Catholics and Muslims alike. ” then why does my local church have a gay vicar in a civil partnership…???

        Eventually you will have to move with the times accept it or be left behind…it will change…society is changing…unmarried mothers are no longer locked up in laundries to slave for no wages…outdated ideas will be seen for what they are and left behind

        • Karla

          Church and her Catholic charities do help with poverty and homlessness, they are perhaps the largest charity on this planet, but those things can be done and can and so can the defense of marriage. It is not hating on gay couple, in fact keeping traditional marriage would help everybody in society. Many gay people are not interested in marriage, this is being driven by a radical few and you know it. The polls show most gay people are not interested in marrying somebody of the same gender

          Catholics do not hate or fear homosexuals, that would be homophobia, but questioning homosexual behaviour, which psychologists and social scientists still investigate the origins of BTW, are they homopobes? , and supporting traditional marriage is not homophobic or hateful. You are trying to shut down debate and you use buzz words like ‘homophobic,’ ‘hate,’ and ‘prejudice’ to do it

        • ms Catholic state

          Claire….rampant homosexual behaviour (and other promiscuity and infanticide!) always preceeds the decline and death of that society. God’s laws will not change. They are eternal. It is our society that will be left behind, forgotten by history.

          Any law that upholds sin is evil….and no government should be enacting them. And it is our duty as Catholics to speak out. Sorry if that upsets you….but you have been seriously misled by the secular society that surrounds you.

          As for helping the poor and homeless…why do you insinuate that Catholics do nothing to help. We know we won’t get to Heaven if we don’t!

        • Daisy

          Well said, Claire. Equality of human beings is a fundamental and the fact that gay people want to be able to get married is an affirmation of the importance of marriage. As you say, to be gay is not a choice. Yet the Catholic Church teaches that being gay is a disordered state and that it is morally evil for gay people to express their love for their partner in a physical way. I am so pleased that there was a majority vote in the House of Commons in favour of gay marriage.

          • Karla

            If you look at being able to marry as an equalities issue then how can you oppose marriage betwen incestuous couples, marriage between more than 2 people, marriage between a person and a inanimate object etc. All people in those types of disturbing relationships can say there will be only true equality if we are allowed to marry. Marriage is not about equality actually, if it was then all people would be allowed to marry at whatever age they want, when in fact there are barriers to who can marry. Are you going to call this discrimination? You have to be a certain age to marry, if you are already married you can not marry somebody else, you can’t marry somebody who you are biologically related too etc

          • Christopher

            Daisy: ‘Equality of human beings is a fundamental and the fact that gay people want to be able to get married is an affirmation of the importance of marriage.’

            Equality of human beings of course is fundamental, no one is denying a homosexual individual is not a human being. However, you have to justify how Homosexual marriage is an act of equality, while denying Polygamy, Polyandry, Incestous Marriages and Padeophilic marriages. What, Daisy, is the purpose of Marriage?

            As to the notion that Homosexuality is not a choice, then would you please explain how there are those who are somehow able to abandon Homosexuality for Hetrosexuality? You see, stating that it is not a choice is to state that one is entirely a slave to their own sexual desires, then if one explicitly states that one is a slave to their sexual desires, then how does one come across the notion of outright paedophilia or even sexual attraction to animals?

            The Catholic Church is correct in stating that Homosexuality is a disordered state, and that it is Morally Evil for them to act upon this. It’s pretty much common sense really which the opposition seems to lack. Should one be so vulgar to explicltiy state that a Man has a unique sexual organ and that a Woman has another unique sexual organ and as such when the two humans interact, life emerges? When the Child becomes absent from Marriage, Marriage is then questioned.

            The hypocrisy of the opposition is astounding, and for somereason they do not want to know about it.

            God Bless.

          • ms Catholic state

            Daisy….all people are equal…but not all behaviour is. Sinful behaviour is never equal to non-sinful behaveiour, no matter how many MPs say it is. They are not God…and can’t change God’s laws.

            And don’t hate on those who disagree with you please!

        • Christopher

          Dear Claire,

          Claire:

          ‘I see that no one replied to my comment – why not leave the gay people alone and do something constructive about things like homelessness and poverty – things the church – well any church- should be concerned about…’

          Obviously then, one did not read the comments, expliclty the one that says alot of this is reactionary. The other reason why there is preaching against Homosexuality is because frankly, it is an immoral act that will send one’s soul Hellbound. A Catholic does not want to see a Soul in Hell. As to the Church concerned about the poor, the poor is not only what the Church is concerned about, it is first concerned about the state and salvation of souls.

          ‘“Is opposing homosexual marriage a form a ‘hate’ or ‘prejudice’?” YES IT IS If you can’t see that you have a problem – the law upholds the rights of gay people to be themselves. To be religious is a choice to be gay is not – it’s how you were born…’

          Poppycock to your last statement, would you care to explain how there are former homosexuals who are heterosexual?

          How is it a form of hate or prejudice? Also your axiom that Marriage is based upon the foundation that two people love each other. What about the woman who married the Eiffel Tower, or the man who married a pillow? Given that an Eiffel Tower and a Pillow cannot express expressions or forms of love, you have infact commited hate, prejudice and bigotry to those who want a peaceful life in marrying said objects. You have not justified why opposing Homosexual marriage is hateful or prejudice, infact I have clearly stated that there are open practising Homosexuals who oppose Homosexual Marriage, I dare you to call them hateful and bigoted, go ahead. Because if you attack this commentary, you are in fact attacking and calling bigotted and prejudiced Homosexuals who have explicitly opposed Homosexual Marriage. Please read the comments before spouting hate, prejducie without actually thinking about the issue.

          Further more, Claire, you have not justified why Incest should be opposed, or why Paedophilia itself should be opposed, if both parties consent in expressing this notion of ‘love’ that is to you a basis for Marriage. Please do explain, or otherwise one would have to label you the bigot here, Claire.

          Claire: ‘Eventually you will have to move with the times accept it or be left behind…it will change…society is changing…unmarried mothers are no longer locked up in laundries to slave for no wages…outdated ideas will be seen for what they are and left behind’

          Dear Claire, society never changes, one only needs to look at history to see the same rampant themes circling over and over again, and for one thing, the Catholic Church has existed for over 2,000 years and will never change. A society that sought to change became irrelevant and became nothing more than mere ashes. The U.S.S.R., Nazi Germany, just two examples of the most recent.
          Also dear Claire, you are in a minority in holding this view, a over a 10:1 ratio was proven by the petitions in opposition, and the numbers of various polls that oppose the promotion of Homosexual Marriage. If you have anything that suggests otherwise that is entirely demonstratable, please demonstrate so.

          For one thing, this society is becoming totalitarian.

          God Bless.

  • Daisy

    Christopher, polygamy does not meet the church’s definition of marriage ie the union of one man and one woman. David’s and Solomon’s first marriages were presumably valid, the subsequent ones were bigamous. Polygamy was common in the Old Testament and does not appear to have provoked God’s displeasure, which makes it difficult to argue that God only approved monogamy

    • ms Catholic state

      Divorce also was practised in the Old Testament….but with the coming of Christ and His sacrifice, a higher order of morality and grace was ushered in. Thus both divorce and polygamy have been condemned by the Church, who being given moral authority, by Christ has confirmed that both divorce and polygamy are sinful.

      As Jesus Christ said to St Peter (the first Pope), ‘whatever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven’. So the Pope’s authority in matters of Faith and Morals have been given to him by Christ.

  • agent.provocateur

    To use a different word describing marriage is a very bad and dangerous idea. Instead we should always patiently explain marriage is between man and woman only. It is true, the British government legalized sodomy and they call it “marriage” too, but it’s their own wishful thinking. The majority of the world rejects this totally degenerated idea. You Christians in Britain have to fight if you want to save your country.

  • Pedro de Luna

    How about “Classic marriage” (as in “Classic Coke”)?

    (p.s. I’ve change my name from just simple “Pedro” to “Pedro de Luna”)

  • Karla

    UKIP:

    EU PROPOSAL IS BEHIND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE FURORE

    ‘The Government’s controversial same-sex marriage legislation is being driven by an EU proposal which is set to become law later this year, say UKIP.

    “Many people have been asking what prompted the Prime Minister to pick this uncalled-for fight with many people in his own party and the country at large,” said UKIP leader Nigel Farage.

    “It has also been unclear why the same debate is being had simultaneously in other countries such as France, where opposition is also growing. Now we know the answer.”

    An EU report due to be voted through the EU Parliament this November would see all marriages and civil contracts conducted in any EU country become legally binding in all other member states. Under the Berlinguer Report, a couple who are not permitted to marry in their home country could travel to another member state in order to wed, knowing that on their return home they would have to be regarded as married.

    Paragraph 40 of the Report would mean that any member state would have to grant ‘all social benefits and other legal effects’ such as legal recognition, tax breaks and benefit entitlements to a married couple, even if such a marriage did not exist in their own legal system.

    Mr Farage said: “Now we know why David Cameron has launched this highly contentious and disruptive legislation, apparently out of the blue.

    “If a couple were to marry in Belgium, Spain, Portugal or Sweden where same-sex marriage is possible, the EU will say that they have to be given the same legal rights in whichever member state they then chose to live – even if that state itself opposes the introduction of same-sex marriage. In essence the Berlinguer Report seeks to establish an EU-wide right to same-sex marriage.

    “It’s no surprise that the Prime Minister has kept quiet about this, even at the expense of cohesion in his own party. He has a hard enough time trying to force his own backbenchers to swallow both his dedication to keeping Britain in the EU and his wish for the state to interfere in the definiton of marriage. To suggest that the two issues are in fact interconnected would have caused complete uproar.”

    http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/2938-eu-proposal-is-behind-samesex-marriage-furore

    UKIP STATEMENT ON THE SAME SEX MARRIAGE BILL

    ‘ Nothing about this Bill has alleviated our concerns over whether individuals or religious institutions will be adequately protected from legal contests against their stance on same sex marriage.

    Such legal contests could end up in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. With only one example of case history directly relating to same sex marriage, it is impossible to predict how future judgments would go.

    The real issue here is that final judgments would be made by judges in Strasbourg and could not be overturned by the UK. The matter would be entirely out of British hands.

    A lot of the debate on same sex marriage actually centres on the definition and propriety of the term “marriage” and how various individuals and institutions take ownership of and interpret that term. For the Church of England the word defines a contract between a man and woman. For many in society and across the world, the application is far broader. As a party we are not in any way opposed to civil partnerships. Indeed we are the only party to believe that transferable married tax allowance should be made available to couples in civil partnerships and that they should be on an equal footing with traditional marriages.

    We are more than happy for people who wish to define themselves within society as “married” to do so, however we wholly disagree with the intrusion of the Government on a religious institution’s definition of the term marriage, whatever that religion may be.

    Where the Bill purports to protect the individuals and religious institutions, it is our fear that via legal interference, quite the reverse is true.

    The issue is not the clean-cut black and white debate that is being portrayed in the media. It raises a variety of challenging questions ranging from the definitions of consummation of marriage to adultery, which will lead to a Gordian knot of legal implications and difficulties likely to wind up in a court in Strasbourg to which British law is fully subservient and over which Britain bears no control.

    It is expressly for these reasons that we believe the Bill is rather cynically being used as a popularity boost and a distraction from other issues, when in fact there is far more at stake than meets the eye.’

    http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/2928-ukip-statement-on-the-same-sex-marriage-bill

  • ForFaithForever

    Marriage is the Union between a Man and a Woman with the Divine Approval
    of God

    God Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth would Not Approve of Anything Else
    being Called ” Marriage ”

    There is No ” Human Rights ” in Religious People such as Devout Roman
    Catholics being Forced to Deny their Beliefs upon the Institution of
    Holy Matrimony and have to Conduct ” Marriage ” Ceremonies which are Not
    in Accordance with the Union of a Man and a Woman with the Blessing of
    God the Father Maker of Heaven and Earth

  • nick francis

    Since the word “union” has already been rejected, I think this would be a good word to use- a Christian or sacramental union or united in Christ.
    Yet, the fact of the matter is that there are some churches that are conducting same-sex marriages. If Catholic – Catholic marriage. Make it more specific. I am catholically married.

    I believe the word “husband” and “wife” now has a new definition in the Macmillan Dictionary.

    I guess one can always say “my naturally-female wife” or “my born-female wife” What would be the problem with this?

    After all, don’t people want “diversity?” It’s ironic that the push for diversity is actually trying to make everyone alike and is totally contradictory to true diversity.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>