Thursday, March 15, 2012

Love and Marriage

I'm sitting here listening to a debate on gay marriage and I'm confused. Not confused in that way that right wing conservatives or religious zealots think gay people are, but confused by the rationales that they put forward as the reason to prevent gay marriage.

Before I go on, it's important to point out I am a lapsed Catholic, why am I lapsed? Because I believe in a more spiritual and humanist approach to society than I believe the Catholic church does. I'm not a big fan of hypocrisy you see.

So the argument seemed to go that marriage is a religious sacrament based on male and female pro-creation and that to undo this was likely to be "damaging to the stability of society" according to Pope Benedict.

I have some problems with this argument, firstly I have been to a multitude of religious weddings, my own one included, and don't recall any of the vows or ceremony relating to the notion of pro-creation, no mention of providing or nurturing children at all. I've just sat here and watched my wedding video, nope, nada. There was a lot about commitment and love though, which I'm pretty sure is capable vows for gay people to take and be true to, just as much as heterosexual people.

Secondly, I have a problem with the far right religious groups who are so adamant to fight for the rights of a foetus, but seemingly won't once that foetus is discovered to be gay - that's right isn't it folks? I'm sensing some cognitive dissonance on this issue, or is it hypocrisy?

Lastly and most importantly I am aghast that Pope Benedict has the gall to be out campaigning about "damaging the stability of society" when he has been the chief of an organisational cover-up by the Catholic Church for decades that has destroyed lives and communities like a plague. Shame on you sir.

It cannot be spiritual or Christian to deny people who love each other the same rights we all take for granted and it is morally wrong for hypocritical zealots to campaign so vehemently against that right.

Here is a great breakdown of the rhetological fallacies of the argument.

Let your voice be heard in the consultation here - It only takes a few minutes.


  1. I too am a lapsed Catholic. Well, not so much lapsed as 'thanks for all the fish, but I need more proof than you can give me'.

    In addition to the above, I am astounded by the lack of tolerance displayed by the church.

    I am, I believe, tolerant of anyone's chosen faith, and their right to believe in any deity they so wish, and indeed would defend that right.

    However, I expect such tolerance to be two way. I honestly do not understand why the church has to take a stance on this outside of 'due to our beliefs, we will not allow you to celebrate your union in our church, but we respect your right to form a union of your choosing'.

  2. My sentiment too, I think I came to believe or realise that it wasn't really about belief or religion, it was about control and commodity.