ROD AND HIS STAFF ATTACK CHILDLESS COUPLES

From THE CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE:

Marriage is an honourable institution and Church of England clergy should do all they can to protect it from redefinition, the chairman of Reform has warned. 

Writing in the Church of England newspaper (which, as I pointed out the other day is not a Church of England newspaper) he said same sex marriage “would undermine the stability of society. If the present Government can alter its definition, then how do we know it might not change again in the future? It becomes something that is malleable rather than being rock solid. If marriage becomes primarily about loving commitment, then, as important as this is, the significance of marriage as a union – a permanent bond – between two people who were made to be physically compatible, is eroded. This union is demonstrated when children are born – the single result of a union of two people of the opposite sex. This doesn’t happen for every marriage – but the fact that it is the best context for nurturing children demonstrates the essential goodness of heterosexual marriage. It is an attempt to redefine marriage so that the link with child-bearing and child-rearing is broken and so that any idea that marriage is a gift from God is demolished.”

COMMENT: So, once again, have I got this right. If a man and a woman cannot have children it doesn't effect the institution of marriage but if a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, can't have children together then it destroys the institution of marriage. I'm not sure how that works myself but Rock Solid Rod obviously thinks it makes sense.

Actually, this whole thing about marriage and having children being the natural way of things is poppycock. If having children was our natural inclination God wouldn't have had to make orgasm such a pleasant experience.

Comments

ROD AND HIS STAFF ATTACK CHILDLESS COUPLES — 13 Comments

  1. If Rod and his ilk actually were doing something about actual threats to marriage, then he and they just MIGHT have some credibility.

  2. I don’t understand it, Chelliah. Iran is trying to join the nuclear family and everybody else is telling them they can’t.

    Another thing I don’t understand is that no one has made any comments about the headline to this post even though they know I expect it when I’ve come up with a particularly good pun worthy of the Sun newspaper.

  3. “…no one has made any comments about the headline…”
    Perhaps that’s because we do not know our scriptures, MP.
    Or because we don’t expect double entendre from Psalm 23.
    : )

    Good job, MP.

  4. Looking at this key sentence, “If marriage becomes primarily about loving commitment, then, as important as this is, the significance of marriage as a union – a permanent bond – between two people who were made to be physically compatible, is eroded.” It occurs to me that if Rod’s staff was comforting him, he might not be so worried about exclusivity. As is instead of well, a spouse, he needs to think himself elite to be comforted.

    ::sigh::

    How did I do with the pun MP?

    FWIW
    jimB
    (hiding in the valley of the shadow!)

  5. It’s because I didn’t originally click through to the article and learn the NAME of chairman of Reform! (How remiss of me.)

    It is extremely clever, MP!!

    Oh! Jim’s comment was just published. Very clever yourself, Jim. 🙂

  6. Oh, and Lois, I was referring to the staff at Reform (as in Rod’s colleagues). But, hey, I’ll take the kudos for the double entendre and thanks for pointing it out 🙂

  7. If marriage becomes primarily about loving commitment, then, as important as this is, the significance of marriage as a union – a permanent bond – between two people who were made to be physically compatible, is eroded.

    This Rod is a tool. He’s in fantasy land.

    Rod believes there is a rock solid permanence to marriage. Have a look around you Rod. You’ll see more broken marriages than you can poke a rod at. “Marriage” is just a piece of paper. It is only the presence of a loving commitment( something which he enviously derides) that can give any stability to society, or the individual family unit. If Rod is looking for stability he might even find it where he least expects it; in family units headed up by two women or two men or even by a single parent. Who’d have thought?

    And while I’m at it, Rod needs sex education lessons.

    Rod: “Where did I come from mummy?”
    Mummy: “Well mummy and daddy got married. And when you get married God gives you babies.”

    Not so Rod. SEX between men and women leads to babies. And it doesn’t have to be happy sex either, Rod. Rape can lead to children. A popular tool in war and …. (oops) marriage.

  8. It is only the presence of a loving commitment( something which he enviously derides) that can give any stability to society, or the individual family unit.

    Wow! Brilliant. I think you have just won the argument, Boaz. Thank you. I’ll let the pope know although he’s not going to be pleased.

  9. Marriage is primarily about forming a basic human community; Adam isn’t good on his own so God splits him in two and makes a family. Kids only enter the equation a lot later in the story. What they’ve done is take Genesis 1 and, typically, ignore Genesis 2, which is the passage which is actually about the primal family. Maybe it doesn’t say what they want to hear.

  10. Perhaps he would find it deeply frightening to realize that physical compatibility isn’t in any way limited to couples who can have kids or even couples who are hetrosexual.

  11. What a spectacle! The whole lot of you are throwing five quid at Hagger here or a lollipop posting there, which has been keeping him moving steadily away from the possibility of gainful employment and probably further into discouragement, while he and you together are doing the same thing in another way for sexual deviants of every variety, which keeps them also moving down a negative path! It’s Dantesque.