tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post1144082206523428399..comments2023-09-14T01:03:30.922+01:00Comments on The Thirsty Gargoyle: L'esprit de l'escalier: Third Thoughts on Redefining MarriageThe Thirsty Gargoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07555762505933950270noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-41858046446113560772011-12-04T22:27:18.366+00:002011-12-04T22:27:18.366+00:00Superb post. Thank you.Superb post. Thank you.Caralhttp://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-10314575060033450492011-10-04T14:11:29.655+01:002011-10-04T14:11:29.655+01:00On a far simpler level - and I agree with the main...On a far simpler level - and I agree with the main points you have enunciated so far - the fundamental purpose of a large (largest?) proportion of those who support gay marriage, and especially their media cheerleaders, is to diminish marriage itself as an institution. It cannot be a complete coincidence that those who traditionally have had nary a good word to say for the 'bourgeois, Recusanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11446741817585462393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-36894642062676164652011-09-30T01:58:06.627+01:002011-09-30T01:58:06.627+01:00You don't have to, just, well shorter comments...You don't have to, just, well shorter comments that don't require as much work to respond to than the original post had taken to write. And a name. Of some sort. Even Jeff the Platonist. I don't mind. Just so I can tell one anonymous from another.The Thirsty Gargoylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07555762505933950270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-49893480958492885302011-09-29T23:16:12.972+01:002011-09-29T23:16:12.972+01:00Fair enough. I'll leave you be.Fair enough. I'll leave you be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-74662948918776793912011-09-29T21:56:05.701+01:002011-09-29T21:56:05.701+01:00I'm starting to think a comments policy is nee...I'm starting to think a comments policy is needed here; you don't seem very responsive to my broad hint that a name would be good. There's also the fact that comments are really meant to be comments, rather than posts in their own right; I realised that rather quickly nine years ago, and as a result started my own blog. I'm thinking that if your views are so developed, you should The Thirsty Gargoylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07555762505933950270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-61201820385170457902011-09-29T19:36:14.581+01:002011-09-29T19:36:14.581+01:002.
When you set out why marriage, a social entity,...2.<br />When you set out why marriage, a social entity, is defined in one way rather than another by the Church and under Irish and British law, you are implicitly adopting the principle belonging to the first camp. Marriage is ordered to serve the procreative purposes of the family, which is a “moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-68507987292278802152011-09-29T19:35:36.291+01:002011-09-29T19:35:36.291+01:001.
I was interested to see how you would wrap up t...1.<br />I was interested to see how you would wrap up the topic on marriage, and the question your pose, and answer, in the following extract is central, I believe, to the whole issue. Although, when you talk of profoundly illiberal, I think profoundly liberal. <br /><br />“If the State redefined marriage to include same-sex covenants it would effectively be demanding that everybody recognise Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-63587430960931246592011-09-28T17:49:33.677+01:002011-09-28T17:49:33.677+01:00Thanks a million for your responses. As somebody w...Thanks a million for your responses. As somebody who tries to live life as a Catholic as best I can in accordance with my conscience, this bit of the Church's teaching is the one I struggle the most with. I have gay friends myself, and "bubbling troubled thoughts" is a very good way of describing the state of my own head on this whole question. Thanks for engaging!<br /><br />(And IAlbert Pondnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-17866731359056722762011-09-28T17:37:31.725+01:002011-09-28T17:37:31.725+01:00To all of that I'd ultimately have to add that...To all of that I'd ultimately have to add that I just don't know. <br /><br />I have a <i>lot</i> of gay friends, having met them at many different stages of my life, and a handful of them are people who are very close to me, such that I'd regard a couple of them as true confidantes. <br /><br />Having talked about stuff like this with a few of them, I have all manner of bubbling The Thirsty Gargoylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07555762505933950270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-7296294351866454482011-09-28T17:27:50.496+01:002011-09-28T17:27:50.496+01:00On point two, I don't think I've said homo...On point two, I don't think I've said homosexuality was historically unusual as an orientation; if I have, I've phrased my thoughts <i>very</i> badly. What I've tried to say is that we don't have the data to say whether it was common or not, and that it certainly was uncommon for homosexuality to be recognised as a phenomenon. That's not to say that it was uncommon, merelyThe Thirsty Gargoylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07555762505933950270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-57156442915556420472011-09-28T17:18:33.320+01:002011-09-28T17:18:33.320+01:002. There is something about man and woman that is ...2. There is something about man and woman that is complimentary in the way that a gay union can never be - scripture is full of references to marriage as between a man and a woman, and even if they're unable to have children, their relationship can still be justified on this basis.<br /><br />Again, I think this is right with regard to marriage - but I don't see how it precludes the Albert Pondnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-79148142604632032762011-09-28T17:18:02.360+01:002011-09-28T17:18:02.360+01:00In the last post I asked you about the State's...In the last post I asked you about the State's position regarding gay marriage, but this time I'd like to ask you about the Church's:<br /><br />I'm a committed Catholic, and I agree with you about the Christian definition of marriage - it is what it is, and shouldn't be redefined into meaning something else. But does the Church necessarily have to oppose all lifelong, Albert Pondnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-45304227299239719292011-09-28T16:53:42.295+01:002011-09-28T16:53:42.295+01:00Well, bear in mind that I'm kind of wrestling ...Well, bear in mind that I'm kind of wrestling with this out loud, as I said the other day, and I may have a different view next week. There's a <i>part</i> of me that wonders whether, given the way the State acts nowadays, and the need for equality, it might be better simply for the State to cease recognising marriages at all. <br /><br />I think there are two answers to your question: The Thirsty Gargoylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07555762505933950270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-37125338034886585302011-09-28T16:31:37.424+01:002011-09-28T16:31:37.424+01:00Very interesting posts here. I'm an admirer of...Very interesting posts here. I'm an admirer of yours (friends may be getting sick of me quoting you) and think the vast majority of what you've said here is sensible, well-argued and correct. My question, or issue, or whatever, is with this bit:<br /><br />"The Point of Marriage<br />Marriage, however, is not and has never been a socially-approved love-bond; indeed, throughout Albert Pondnoreply@blogger.com