SAME GENDER MARRIAGE HAS BUGGER ALLTO DO WITH THE PERMISSIVE SOCIETY

An English Roman Catholic bishop is claiming that same gender marriage is the unavoidable consequence of the contraceptive pill. I expect his logic is that contraception leads to casual sex which leads to a general acceptance of what once thought immoral which leads to an anything goes attitude which leads to same gender marriage.

But he is wrong because same gender marriage is anything but anything goes. Same gender marriage is a conservative, not progressive phenomenon. It is an attempt to return marriage to a real or imagined time when people got married because they were in love and where all other reasons were secondary or accidental. It is about security and till death do us part and being allowed to be there at the death.

Same gender marriage is the opposite of where "the permissive society" has taken human mating. If anything, contraception has led to the death of marriage for all except the hardcore romantic. Babies out of marriage, babies without a father (often the deliberate choice of the mother), babies for social housing and babies for something to do are increasingly the norm.

It is the irony of the Roman Catholic position on same gender marriage that they are attacking the very people who want to save marriage both for themselves and others. The allowance of real marriage for LGBT couples with all the trimmings (including most of all a church wedding) will lead to more heterosexual couples marrying not less.

Comments

SAME GENDER MARRIAGE HAS BUGGER ALLTO DO WITH THE PERMISSIVE SOCIETY — 3 Comments

  1. “It is an attempt to return marriage to a real or imagined time when people got married because they were in love and where all other reasons were secondary or accidental.”

    Imagined: marriage has mostly been a family/clan business transaction (the “goods” of business being legally-legitimate offspring).

    But then again, the Garden of Eden is imagined, too. As Willy Wonka sang about, imagination rules!

  2. MP, you are completely correct. They are ignoring the real issues andgoing after a community that actually has a deeply conservative theology of marriage. I hope that the CoE will come to its senses and realize that including LGBT couples will strengthen all….

  3. They’re rather slow on the uptake aren’t they? i read the argument in favour of SSM’s back in the 1990’s in the very conservative Andrew Sullivan’s “Virtually Normal” (published 1995. He saw them as the best bet for the survival of traditionally defined marriage against all the weird modernist variants!