WHY ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPSSHOULD GET LAID AT LEAST ONCEIN THEIR SEXUALLY FRUSTRATED LIVES

From THE CATHOLIC WEEKLY:

Allowing two men or two women to ‘marry’ would involve a fundamental change in our understanding of marriage, from a life-giving and sexually complementary union to a personal, romantic relationship with no true communion or connection to procreation, says Bishop Julian Porteous, auxiliary Bishop of Sydney.

“It will entrench, in a public way, the separation of sexuality from its life-giving aspect and separate the notion of marriage from including the generation of children,” he said.

“It will move marriage from a children-centred institution to an adult-centred one. It will weaken the meaning and dignity of motherhood and fatherhood and declare that having both a father and a mother is unnecessary for the raising of children. This will deeply affect children and young people’s aspirations for their own marriage.

“Their understanding of marriage would also shift to being about one’s self-fulfilment, rather than about self-giving.”

COMMENT: Oh, get real, bishop!

Marriage has always been about two post-pubescents, who, hopefully, really fancy each other, shagging. Everything else is accidental.

What's more, when it isn't about this, then things can get really immoral. You only have to look at the English aristocracy (right up to and including England's very own Prince Charles) to realise that arranged and forced marriages, where the mutual, sexual attraction is not present, leads very easily to infidelity and promiscuity. But it would seem that the Roman Catholic hierarchy prefers immorality behind closed doors to open, loving, faithful, gay relationships.

If people got married primarily to have children then, in today's society, there would be even more divorces than there are already. If anything, children push married couples apart - probably because the parents don't get to have sex as much as they should. The reason why sex is such a sticky business is so that those involved in it get stuck together.

Comments

WHY ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPSSHOULD GET LAID AT LEAST ONCEIN THEIR SEXUALLY FRUSTRATED LIVES — 13 Comments

  1. from a life-giving and sexually complementary union to a personal, romantic relationship with no true communion

    1. It’d be life-giving and complementary if you’re gay/lesbian.
    2. Nothing wrong with romantic
    3. Who says “no true communion” ? We can’t make windows into the souls of others.

    the separation of sexuality from its life-giving aspect and separate the notion of marriage from including the generation of children

    Happens already. Some hetero couples are childless (by choice or not), and some are too old to have children. Gonna forbid them to marry as well ?

    It will weaken the meaning and dignity of motherhood and fatherhood and declare that having both a father and a mother is unnecessary for the raising of children.

    1. Bullshit. A happy gay/lesbian couple in no way affects my marriage or my “dignity” as a father.
    2. Bullshit twice. Having two parents is great (just so you can “tag team” the little darlings, if nothing else), but single parents can be fantastic at their job, too (cf. my mother).

    Their understanding of marriage would also shift to being about one’s self-fulfilment, rather than about self-giving.

    Exactly how ? Gay/lesbian couples can be just as self-giving as anyone else.

    This whole stmt is such a morass of fallacious reasoning I’m getting a bit dizzy just thinking about it 😛

  2. Infidelity and promiscuity happen in a lot of relationships even where the mutual attraction is present. But that’s another story and nothing to do with what the bishop is talking about. He is, quite apart from anything that Mad Priest and David have already quite sensibly pointed out, an idiot to assume a lesbian/gay marriage can’t be as focussed on raising children as a straight one.

  3. Of course, Cathy. But I bet there’s more unhappiness in marriages where the sex is bad than where it is good. My point is that marriage is primarily about sex. Very few couples would choose to live with each other just to look after and pay for the upkeep of babies. If this wasn’t true then we would not have evolved the orgasm.

  4. Very likely. Far be it from me to say why people get married. I do think that you and Jane are probably unusual in that neither of you ever wanted children. With most couples that I have met over the years at least one of the people involved wanted kids and went into marriage with the strong expectation that they would have them. So marriage is commonly partly about having a family, even these days. Not to anywhere like the degree the bishop seems to be implying, though.

  5. In the battle over Prop8, as they play the child card over and over again, they have as yet failed to explain how my marriage in any way affects the procreation of straight couple or the raising of children. They have not in fact identified any consequences of my marriage. Most telling, they specifically are NOT going after adoption of children by gay parents, which one MIGHT argue is the only thing that DOES impact on the raising of children in straight families.

    The logic is completely absent.

  6. There’s lots of reasons why people get married. But sex is the number one. If people primarily went into marriage to have babies then we would not have evolved the orgasm.

  7. Mad Priest, we evolved the orgasm well before the institution of marriage was invented, though that does not in itself invalidate your argument that that is what marriage these days is primarily about. In fact as far as I know marriage was originally primarily a contract between the woman’s father and the bridegroom and was about the exchange of property and the consolidation of power and assets, and for many a long century the majority of human beings probably weren’t moneyed or socially high-class enough to bother with it. It is only in recent years, only the last century or so, that it has taken on all the romantic baggage (including the romantic notion of “family”, as opposed to producing heirs).

    IT – I can’t even see how adoption by gay couples has impact on straight couples. I really can’t.

  8. Mad Priest, we evolved the orgasm well before the institution of marriage was invented, though that does not in itself invalidate your argument that that is what marriage these days is primarily about. In fact as far as I know marriage was originally primarily a contract between the woman’s father and the bridegroom and was about the exchange of property and the consolidation of power and assets, and for many a long century the majority of human beings probably weren’t moneyed or socially high-class enough to bother with it. It is only in recent years, only the last century or so, that it has taken on all the romantic baggage (including the romantic notion of “family”, as opposed to producing heirs).

    IT – I can’t even see how adoption by gay couples has impact on straight couples. I really can’t.

  9. Yes, I’m not stupid. That’s why I never mentioned love in my post. But the contract between the bride’s father and the bridegroom was that the bridegroom would get sex in return for whatever the bride’s father wanted. And, we have absolutely no idea how long ago the marriage contract, in one form or another, began. I expect it was ages before homo sapiens appeared on the scene as it is very probably one of the main reasons for humans becoming such a successful species.

  10. It’s my understanding that the bridegroom in the traditional contract was more usually after money, status, property or heirs. In fact there was probably not necessarily a lot of sex in those sorts of alliances – not for long, anyway. Keeping a mistress or lover on the side for the sex part has not exactly been unknown across the course of history. Infidelity has always been a lot more common than fidelity.

    But that’s not how marriage works these days. Not even for the royal family.

    It is also very irritating that the RCC likes to pretend its concept of family is eternal and God-given when it is historically specific and in fact probably not even all that old.

    I’m not particularly arguing with your central point, Mad Priest, in case it sounds like I am.

  11. from a life-giving and sexually complementary union to a personal, romantic relationship with no true communion or connection to procreation

    From patriarchy to humanity. “Quick: outlaw it, w/ ‘Extreme Prejudice’!”

  12. Interesting that I just read on an American political blog that 4 out of 10 Americans surveyed believe that marriage as an institution is losing all significance here.

    I also read last week that in the African American community a quite high majority of births are now out of wedlock and the numbers for Hispanic and Caucasian American births aren’t too far behind, statistically.

    The RCC can continue to ignore these issues and hate on the gays instead but they are eventually going to preach themselves into being anachronistic obsolescences.

    Sex just isn’t that big a deal anymore, as far as “getting” the church’s blessing and feeling guilty without it, for many, many people.

    They were right about birth control; freeing women from the obligation of giving birth every time made sex recreational whether people are willing to admit to that outside of their churches or not.

  13. I do not understand how people continue to talk about in the African American Community many births are now out of wedlock, have you forgotten the legacy of slavery. It is very sad that some African Americans buy into this misinformation. But I was at a meeting of Anglican scholars that I heard a biblical scholar say that those in the global North should learn from those in the global South about marriage. That proposal frightens me.