Why is a civil

partnership not

good enough?

A selection of views on gay marriage

The current debate about gay marriage has a number of puzzling features, one of which concerns the emotional/spiritual differences, if any, between marriage, legally contracted civil partnerships, and lifelong unmarried partnerships.
     As a society, we have grown up with the concept of marriage as a desirable state. Imbued with such traditional perceptions then, and being pro-marriage, what does one perceive to be lacking in the other forms of partnership option? More to the point, what is it about marriage that is so desirable? Why does the gay/lesbian population want it and, conversely, why is it being denied them? Does the second question answer the first, or are there more fundamental reasons why marriage is the best option? Is the barrier to gay marriage only a religious one?
     The downside of simply living together is that such arrangements lack both legal and economic safeguards for the partners. It can also be argued that the absence of some form of ceremonial, public commitment to mark the union, be it legal or spiritual, may weaken the strength of the bond, and consequently, the successful continuation of the relationship. I am unaware of any clear evidence to support this.  
     However, such possible deficiencies are addressed in the legal contract of a civil partnership. A public ceremony and commitment, a celebratory occasion – what more is required? Is this not marriage in every sense of the word? Two answers spring to mind – religion and procreation. The first suggests that the spiritual side to loving relationships needs supernatural blessing and permission. In our predominantly secular society, such a minority view still holds sway, and many if not most marriages are conducted by a priest/minister. The continuation of this practice may be the result of genuine religious belief, or of traditional mindsets, or the desire for a significant ceremony, the lack of awareness of a pleasing alternative, or of some combination of all of the above. However, many marriages are not religious.      The marriage ceremony is performed in town council offices, or in a hotel or other venue, by a non-religious council or humanist official. Is such a service not open to gay/lesbian couples?
     The procreation defence of 'traditional' marriage is possibly harder to rebut. The survival of the species depends upon children. Putting aside worries of depleting sperm counts, boys need to mate with girls. Same-sex attraction may be all part of life's rich tapestry, but it won't butter any evolutionary parsnips. Except that we've invented new ways of producing babies. It's hardly surprising the R C church is confused; we all are. But what has this to do with marriage? Can a couple only be considered to be married if they can procreate? An obvious point, but what about married couples who cannot or choose not to procreate?
     In the end, is it all down to semantics?

David Warden

 

The archbishop's comments are not well thought through. With due respect, neither are the reactions of most respondents, focusing as they do on 'rights' and 'prevention' and such negative forms of expression. I am not a Roman Catholic, although I am a Christian, currently attending a church well-pastored by a godly man thoroughly versed in the scriptures, a church whose mission places emphasis on social action in all its facets including health, education, relief of poverty and equal opportunity. I state this background to avoid any reader forming the perception that this is intended to be anything other than a secular response.
     I am pro-life and pro-quality of life. Abortion on easy demand I am against; euthanasia on easy demand as a convenience for despatch of the burdensome sick and elderly I oppose; 'on easy demand' being the operative words. I support healthy lifestyles. Abuse of alcohol, addictive use of harmful drugs, lack of exercise or unthinking obesity do not fit the model of healthy living. Marriage and the nuclear family is the cornerstome of society, without stereotyping the roles of husband, wife or parent. Lifelong committed relationships enrich the lives of individuals; whether 'marriage' is the appropriate term, or whether 'civil partnership' is better, is moot. Where sexual practices work against public and private health, encouragement of these practices is wrong, if consistency with 'pro-quality of life' is the principle which underlies choice.
     Perhaps if Archbishop Conti devoted his entire time to a 'pro-quality of life' ministry he would avoid involvement in foolish and ill-informed arguments between himself and others. Finally, the archbishop, having chosen a celibate lifestyle, has made the clearest of choices and whatever choice he has made does not dis-entitle him to offer opinion on matters of sexual practice or union.

David Kinnon

 

It was good to see Kenneth Roy's (11 October) article about Archbishop Conti's outrageous comments on gay marriages, and the several pieces in following issues that supported his views. However, I did have difficulty seeing what Elizabeth Roberts was getting at. The procreation of children is simply a biological process and, in the absence of contraception, can occur in fertile couples regardless of whether or not they are married; indeed many couples nowadays choose to live together and have children without bothering with any form of marriage ceremony. 
     As for providing a stable parental home for children – an argument often put forward for marriage – a gay couple are just as capable as providing a stable loving home for children as a heterosexual couple. And many do so by adoption, with lesbian couples having the option of choice of adoption or the usual biological process with the aid of impregnation via a sperm donor.

Richard Bingham

 

To put it mildly, I'm a bit rusty on Catholic moral teaching and would welcome, as Nick Henderson suggests (12 October), a forum where better informed and sharper ethicists could have their say. I would however just add: Individuals are prevented in a democracy from doing a large number of things they would like to do, even things they believe in.
      Now in fact those who wishing to 'tie the knot' are already not prevented from gay marriage de facto, only the church's blessing on it. But on the premises the Catholic Church holds about human nature (and not merely the inclinations of believers) it simply cannot subscribe to 'non-sense': 'gay marriage' is an oxymoron. Archbishop Conti might not get his way on this, as his predecessor (Winning) did not when he tried to tackle PM Blair on the issue of abortion, yet he has not only a right but a duty of conscience to promote the teaching of the Catholic Church. It might help if he or his consultants could explain their position a bit more clearly, not least as to what is meant by 'reconstruct society on ideological grounds'.
     While we are on the subject of the Catholic Church in Scotland,  I think it would do no harm were 'Protestant institutions' including the Kirk, in the spirit of the gospel, to issue an apology for decades of discrimination towards their Catholic brothers and sisters, or where such has indeed been issued, to make it better known. A result might be that Christians would be more able to contribute to the common good.

Mark W Elliott

 

It is clear that Bob Cant (13 October), like so many contributing to the media in Scotland, has little time for the Catholic Church; It is a 'celibocracy' where you have the 'screams of cardinals' who 'terrorise people'.
     This is not by experience of being a Catholic in Scotland in the past 50 years. In his article he ignores the coherent arguments made by those – not only in the Catholic Church – who oppose same-sex marriage. The Catholic (and mainstream Christian) view of marriage is that it can only involve a man and a woman. Anything else is not marriage. (This explains why civil partnerships, for same-sex couples only, were introduced.)
     Until a few decades ago this was generally accepted in our society. 
Marriage, in this form, had proved a successful cornerstone for our society.
Not least, this is because marriage has proved to be – by far – the best way in which to bring up children.
     Societies where family life in its traditional sense is strong can endure almost any setback. The material prosperity of recent decades has led to a complacent assumption that the disasters which routinely afflicted previous generations have been banished permanently.
     In Scotland, marriage, in its traditional form, has been eroded. Those who have suffered most from this have been children. There is a reluctance in this country to recognise the fact that many (not all) of Scotland's peculiarly acute social problems stem from the breakdown in traditional family life. Introducing same-sex marriage may not be a huge disaster for our society;
it will be a further step in the wrong direction.
     In his article, Bob Cant appeals to 'equality and respect.' A same-sex couple is not equal to a mixed-sex couple; one can produce children, the other can not.  Legislation can not change biology. With regard to respect, the phrases he has used about the Catholic Church suggest he should hesitate before invoking this word.
     Perhaps the most disheartening thing about the way Bob Cant, and others, pursue their campaign is the implicit assumption that all previous generations (and a significant section of the present generation) were bigots. Only the secular humanists of our time, and those who agree with them, are free of such bigotry.

John Scott