tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post7788051951430233870..comments2023-09-14T01:03:30.922+01:00Comments on The Thirsty Gargoyle: Behind the CurtainThe Thirsty Gargoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07555762505933950270noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-10824217696464345152012-01-11T16:45:58.187+00:002012-01-11T16:45:58.187+00:00I'll accept that TG has written this in good f...I'll accept that TG has written this in good faith. However, he has clearly fundamentally misunderstood what the CPA 2004 does. Legislation effects what the legislature intends - this is a matter of legal science. The CPA is very clearly intended to be a creation of a public/civil status for homosexual relationships between two consenting adults of the same sex, not within prohibited degreesLyndanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-83628750410303459332012-01-05T22:24:53.150+00:002012-01-05T22:24:53.150+00:00Realy, everything that Toby just said - not least ...Realy, everything that Toby just said - not least the respect for your efforts for the faith on your blog hitherto. <br /><br />I'm grateful to Toby for having been spared the effort - and for having to stump up the energy to make it.Benedict Ambrosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-16855035123560009472012-01-05T17:55:45.056+00:002012-01-05T17:55:45.056+00:00Dear Thirsty One,
I'm a big fan of yours and ...Dear Thirsty One,<br /><br />I'm a big fan of yours and delighted that you've brought your obviously considerable intellect and fidelity to the Magisterium to the Catholic Voices project. Your work on the Irish abuse scandal has been a great service to the Church.<br /><br />I've read your post on CV and this current post and they're highly persuasive, but in an attempt to be Tobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10422935508542878960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-33090045822206303682012-01-03T20:21:00.422+00:002012-01-03T20:21:00.422+00:00MightI refer the hononouble blogger to the followi...MightI refer the hononouble blogger to the following link?<br /><br />http://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/catholic-voices/<br /><br />The author is a sterling bloke. I think there could be a mutually enlightening exchange of views here - at least, I would be intersted to hear what you might have to say to one another. Anyway, I hope you find it of interest.Benedict Ambrosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-7057165326694978302012-01-02T14:39:13.609+00:002012-01-02T14:39:13.609+00:00Nicolas,
Given that you seem to think that these ...Nicolas,<br /><br />Given that you seem to think that these matters should be addressed on the personal websites of individual Catholics, rather than by addressing the bishops or Rome, one would hope that you'd have some understanding of the basics of blog etiquette.<br /><br />You'll note that at no point on this blog have I ever used my own name. I made a point for years of keeping my The Thirsty Gargoylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07555762505933950270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-16501502689709672162012-01-02T14:06:22.527+00:002012-01-02T14:06:22.527+00:00No physical or surgical change is required other t...No physical or surgical change is required other than that so it is quite possible for a woman to become pregnant by a man who has changed gender to being a woman and entered into a civil partnership with the woman whom he makes pregnant.<br /><br />From section 63 onwards there are some 560 references to the “family” as being equivalent to the civil partnership – surely this is equating civil Nicolas Bellordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08063019108964247676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-55442946566954180832012-01-02T14:02:12.566+00:002012-01-02T14:02:12.566+00:00You say “we do not know why each and every MP who ...You say “we do not know why each and every MP who supported the legislation voted for it”. Naturally not, but presumably if one read the debates in Parliament one would get a pretty good idea of what certain of the Lords & MPs would be thinking e.g:<br /><br /><i>Civil Partnership Bill [H.L.]<br />HL Deb 22 April 2004 vol 660 cc387-433387<br />§11.37 a.m.<br /><br />Baroness Scotland of Nicolas Bellordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08063019108964247676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-46280099901400188052012-01-02T14:00:43.478+00:002012-01-02T14:00:43.478+00:00Dear Mr Daly,
The point I was trying to make was ...Dear Mr Daly,<br /><br />The point I was trying to make was about institutionalising homosexual unions as the CDF is opposing such. I was trying to find out what in English Law could be taken as institutionalising something and I am suggesting that the Civil Partnership Act creates a new status for a civil partner and that that effectively institutionalises a civil partnership.<br /><br />I Nicolas Bellordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08063019108964247676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-89820564100784182282012-01-01T22:42:51.626+00:002012-01-01T22:42:51.626+00:00Individuals may use civil partnerships as means --...Individuals may use civil partnerships as means -- in their minds and with their family and friends -- of affirming homosexually active relationships, but the State does not do so.<br /><br />It appears that I do need to point you to the Catechism, which speaks highly of all marriage, not merely Christian marriage. It makes it clear that marriage is a covenant, a creation ordinance authored by The Thirsty Gargoylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07555762505933950270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-50845659968959046842012-01-01T21:15:29.300+00:002012-01-01T21:15:29.300+00:00You call CPs a parallel structure. Parallel to wh...You call CPs a parallel structure. Parallel to what if not marriage?<br /><br />You then accuse people of wittering “about the law having been created to help homosexual couples”. Here we will be arguing about the history of the enactment of this legislation. Are you really suggesting that the law as to CPs was not enacted overwhelmingly by pressure from the homosexual community and their Nicolas Bellordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08063019108964247676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-7947515398770972352012-01-01T21:11:43.903+00:002012-01-01T21:11:43.903+00:00You say “On marriage in English law, I think you&#...You say “On marriage in English law, I think you're confusing the rights and statuses which belong to marriage with the ephemera of marriage in English law - ephemera that are required from the State and that can be decreed unnecessary by the State.” <br />I was only trying to make the point that marriage is a status in English law – quite different from a mere contract. I am perfectly Nicolas Bellordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08063019108964247676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-1953056981134823662012-01-01T21:06:41.199+00:002012-01-01T21:06:41.199+00:00Dear Mr Daly,
Many thanks for this. I note that...Dear Mr Daly,<br /><br />Many thanks for this. I note that you agree with me that “the line about refusing formal cooperation” relates to “homosexual unions”.<br /><br />I think your argument from there on is that same-sex partnerships are different from homosexual unions and that what you are saying is that same-sex partnerships are morally neutral and if some use same-sex partnerships as a Nicolas Bellordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08063019108964247676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-57232170022183626232011-12-31T19:57:29.828+00:002011-12-31T19:57:29.828+00:00It's true that the line about refusing formal ...It's true that the line about refusing formal cooperation etc does relate to two of the three situations; that was a slip in my typing, but not my original thinking. My reasoning had taken this into account. I may fix the text to correct any further misconceptions that may arise out of this.<br /><br />On marriage in English law, I think you're confusing the rights and statuses which <i>The Thirsty Gargoylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07555762505933950270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-75120826676437505802011-12-31T13:24:07.710+00:002011-12-31T13:24:07.710+00:00Mr Daly thinks one can make a fine distinction bet...Mr Daly thinks one can make a fine distinction between same-sex partnerships and homosexual unions. He quotes from the CDF document but it would have been better to have quoted the whole paragraph:<br /><br />“It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does Nicolas Bellordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08063019108964247676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-39463219462970423542011-12-31T13:22:34.174+00:002011-12-31T13:22:34.174+00:00However Mr Daly then queries what the CDF meant by...However Mr Daly then queries what the CDF meant by a “homosexual union”. He says the CDF identifies such as grounded in “homosexual behaviour”. I cannot find where he gets that from; I think the CDF takes the common-sense approach that the purpose of most people entering homosexual unions is to give some sort of status to their homosexual behaviour. Mr Daly seems to be saying that a homosexualNicolas Bellordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08063019108964247676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-35406990536534037002011-12-31T13:19:23.946+00:002011-12-31T13:19:23.946+00:00A discussion has arisen on James Preece's blog...A discussion has arisen on James Preece's blog about your indorsement of the Archbishop's position on Civil Partnerships. I have made the following comments:<br /><br /><br />Greg Daly gives a much fuller version of his reasoning on his blog “The Thirsty Gargoyle”. There he writes:<br /><br />“The CDF distinguished between three ways in which states could deal with homosexual unions: Nicolas Bellordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08063019108964247676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-25669361843652783242011-12-30T15:37:15.981+00:002011-12-30T15:37:15.981+00:00"...my first encounter with Kensington's ..."...my first encounter with Kensington's greatest son was an unpromising taste of 'The Queer Feet' when I was fourteen or thereabouts,"<br /><br />Mine too! Betcha yours was in the old "Exploring English" for Inter Cert, no? We had the same teacher for English as for Latin (it was in the 70s, there were still 20 of us studying Latin for the Inter). He was a Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200177861013445343.post-8126234297660903032011-12-29T21:03:10.519+00:002011-12-29T21:03:10.519+00:00"like""like"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com