Protecting the true meaning of marriage.

[Arturo Bassick]

Well I agree with him.
Marriage should be protected. It is a religious definition and should be left to the Church to administer.

There is no reason the State can not extend the idea of civil partnerships to encompass all unions. Require that everybody has to have the civil ceremony to be legally joined and give the choice of a Church ceremony to the religious. It works that way in many other Countries.

**I am not religious in any way shape or form.

[norrahe]

*yawn* yet more homophobic bulltulip from an unmarried priest.

I found it amusing when I got married and if you were unfortunate to be catholic you had to do an obligatory pre-marriage course run by priests and nuns

[Gonzo]

Surly marriage was around before the Christian church so why do they have a monopoly on its meaning?

Yes, we know that.

But to be fair to this chap, the church is his whole life and the only way he earns a living, so I wouldn't expect him to be open to any alternative viewpoints.

It has made me think though. Neither myself or Mrs Gonzo have any interest in religion at all, but we both rather like being married. Why is that?

We didn't get married in a church though, we got married in a vineyard. I think that was an appropriate location.

[Lockhouse]

I agree with him from a societal not a religous viewpoint (I'm an athiest) and signed the petition. We already have civil partnerships, let's leave it at that.

[norrahe]

It has made me think though. Neither myself or Mrs Gonzo have any interest in religion at all, but we both rather like being married. Why is that?

Good old social conditioning

[ThomasSoerensen]

Perhaps he is scared that some alter buy from his past have successfully repressed all the bad memories and has now fallen in love with the romantisized memory of him and that the boy is on his way to propose to the dear priest.

[Gonzo]

Good old social conditioning

Possibly, I would like to think not though.

I'm not normally one to accept anyone else's view of what is right or what is wrong.

[ThomasSoerensen]

you could switch to Polish parallel import cigs. Good stuff. Come on , go on, there's no harm in it.

[d000hg]

There are indeed more important things than good PR. So lets have a look at his reasons :-

It'd be easier if he just said "because it's wrong" - which is surely a more accurate official viewpoint. I think he's trying to avoid bad PR buy finding social reasons rather than just saying what he actually thinks.

*yawn* yet more homophobic bulltulip

IS it homophobia to say homosexual behaviour is wrong, IF it doesn't spill over into how you think about and act towards the actual people doing it? Looking online, it seems a bit unclear... some definitions say it is about how you treat gay people, others also include your feelings about 'gayness' itself.

It has made me think though. Neither myself or Mrs Gonzo have any interest in religion at all, but we both rather like being married. Why is that?

Well the biblical answer would be that marriage is a part of what people are designed for. i.e. it's part of how the world works, like gravity, and therefore even if you aren't religious it's part of 'what you are'. Similar to discussions about conscience and so on.
Not really a helpful answer if you don't believe in the first place, but since you asked I'm sure there are arguments from social evolutionary people too if you look for them.

[Old Greg]

I liked the cardinal saying that gay marriage is ostensibly trying to redefine reality. Good job he's kept his sense of humour