tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post3784351076533127599..comments2024-03-29T08:14:29.603+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: The Oxford Dons' Case Against MarriageAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-65575805397344451042012-08-03T13:24:55.721+01:002012-08-03T13:24:55.721+01:00What your god claims to think has no bearing on th...What your god claims to think has no bearing on this debate, as the secular law is not proposing to restrict your freedom to choose who to marry. We have no need to refer to your definition of marriage, which is not relevant to the secular sphere.<br /><br />I think you need to realise that this is going to happen. There is a very large parliamentary majority for this change. Your issue is how to deal with it.<br /><br />Mike HomfrayMerseymikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07231364271812168188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-4873102656908592062012-06-25T04:51:02.817+01:002012-06-25T04:51:02.817+01:00Perhaps now is a good time to guide our communitie...Perhaps now is a good time to guide our communities into the terms "marriage" and "statutory marriage".<br /><br />* Marriage: for life, monogamous, heterosexual, and with an explicit bias towards procreation (solely) within the union. (aka "historical marriage")<br /><br />* Statutory marriage:whatever the law of the land currently defines it as.<br /><br />(from NSW, Australia)Andrew Whitenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-84998668880387637982012-06-24T23:03:21.640+01:002012-06-24T23:03:21.640+01:00Dear John,
It is not surprising that these Dons ar...Dear John,<br />It is not surprising that these Dons are from Oxford. An establishment renowned for producing what might be described as rebellious proponents.<br /><br />Graham Wood is renowned for his comments on the flaws in the argument for SSM and I agree with both of the above commentators. How we need people with reasoned arguments to be able to present their case loudly in the media. How sad the minimal voice from the Middle England population. Half a million petitioners is good but small in relation to the overall population.Integrityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01403843427007644914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-78403876510503072552012-06-24T17:55:03.451+01:002012-06-24T17:55:03.451+01:00The Oxford Dons' mistake lies in the very firs...The Oxford Dons' mistake lies in the very first point they address: complementarity. This initial mistake gives them freedom to make more mistakes. <br /><br />We have been trained to use the word "Gender" instead of "Sex". "Gender" is an identity. "Sex" is a physical reality. Their approach to complementarity comes from the viewpoint of gender, not sex. This is perhaps why they overlook the physical difference between a man and a woman. They propose, quite rightly, that differences must be "functionally relevant" in order to be recognised by the state, but by overlooking physical reality, they overlook the fact that the physical differences between men and women must themselves be functionally relevant to something. That something is the physical act of marriage. John Sentamu is the only public figure to have made the distinction between the emotional and the physical. We are seeking to equalise in the name of emotional equality. Yet we are seeking to do so in the context of a physical relationship. A redefinion of marriage is actually a legal declaration that there is no such thing as a male body or a female body. <br /><br />If the institution of marriage is not founded on the principle of procreation, what is it founded on? As usual, there is no real effort to put forward an alternative reason for the existence of the legal institution. The fire brigade was founded, in principle, to put out fires. Yet we do not need to put out a fire to become a firefighter. Nor do we need to be a firefighter to put out a fire. The principle is not the act. I thought dons knew that sort of thing...<br /><br />I agree with Graham's last sentence. Why is it that the status quo is being asked to justify itself, when those wishing to change the purpose of the institution cannot even pinpoint a grounds for discrimination within the institution? Whether your understanding of marriage is informed by God, nature, design, or evolution, the conclusion is the same because the conclusion is reality: the act of marriage knows no discrimination. If the scales are balanced, then it follows that moving the scales will create imbalance.gentlemindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14549906963144474241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-17296432619351512312012-06-23T15:20:42.545+01:002012-06-23T15:20:42.545+01:00I agree wholly with the drift of your criticism of...I agree wholly with the drift of your criticism of the gentlemen from Oxford. Their proposals appear to be largely negative and merely reiterate the current proposals for SSM, but without much by way of substantial argument to warrant change.<br /><br />Their casual dismissal of 'gender' as the primary building blocks of traditional marriage and their words "marriage is not intrinsically between a man and a woman", betrays a contempt for what most people regard as absolutely essential, and in effect a rejection of complementarity as the real world in which marriage take place. <br />One has to question why the comparison needs to be made between 'gender' in marriage and long outdated arguments about race in the USA!<br /><br />Quite why they say that gender classification is "invidious" is not clear - presumably because they do not like the exclusive nature of traditional marriage - one man and one woman for life.<br />Also it is disingenuous for these academics to pretend that their aim is not to redefine marriage as presently understood, when they state that procreation is not essential to marriage. But we know that in principle the only framework in which children are born, nurtured and integrated is the natural one of family initiated by a sexual union.<br />Procreation may not always be possible as all would concede, but that does not invalidate it as a desired objective, and one which of course presupposes heterosexual complemtarity. <br />It is not good enough, certainly in terms of a legal definition of marriage to assert as they do that "mutuality and faithfulness are enough".<br />However, there is a far greater and fundamentl objection to their approach which is to ask the question on what basis should society legitimise in law practicing sodomy? <br /> As you rightly ask, why need SSM stop there? The absence of any discussion of the logical extension of their premise is significant, and of course is the primary reason why the church could never endorse SSM in any shape or form. <br /><br />Your quotation from C S Lewis is apt because in effect equality legislation and the Civil Partnership Act does indeed make reality "two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with the rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members."<br /><br />Therefore for the men of Oxford to blandly declare that "separate is not equal" is frankly meaningless. CP gives homosexuals virtually all that marriage gives to heterosexual couples, and as one MP suggested to me, proposals for SSM are not needed and Parliament could if necessary simply amend the CP Act. <br /><br />It is a pity that these woolly minded academia were unable to articulate any definition of marriage of their own by way of clarification, or any sound reason why the Christian understanding of marriage over centuries is somehow inadequate, and not least why there should be a radical redefintion of marriage at the behest of a tiny minority of vocal campaigners.<br />My own view is that Christians do not need to justify the status quo by engaging the complex humanistic arguments of disaffected liberals, but rather need to reiterate the simple definition of marriage as Scripture, and Christ himself defines it.graham woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13104720099020515294noreply@blogger.com