Tuesday, August 11, 2009

A comment for thepunch.com.au on gaymarriage

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/theres-no-logical-reason-to-allow-gay-marriage/

I submitted the following comment for publication at the web page to which I link at the top of this post. I’m not sure why the moderators refused to publish it, since even more hard-line anti-gaymarriage comments were published, but here it is anyway:

***

The commenters who’ve objected to Mr. Kenyon’s argument against gaymarriage by reason of its sterility seem to have missed the point (at least partly because Mr. Kenyon has not stated his case adequately, I grant). Opposite-sex marriage is, by its *nature*, open to new life, and the fact that there might happen to be some *defect* of nature in either spouse does nothing to detract from this; so long as the spouses have the requisite working parts, so to speak, for consummating the marriage, they can contract marriage validly. So-called same-sex marriage, on the other hand, shuts itself off to new life *by its very nature*, not because of some defect on the part of either ‘spouse’. Moreover, same-sex pseudo-sexual relationships shut themselves off to love, since love is desiring the highest good for another, and the good is that which suits the nature of the thing desiring it, so for someone to purport to show love for someone else by doing things which suit no-one’s nature is absurd and obscene. In a nutshell: same-sex relationships are anti-family (and anti-love) *because of* their very nature, whereas opposite-sex relationships might happen to be anti-family and anti-love, but only *in spite of* their nature.

As for those who turn ‘discrimination’ into a dirty word: an earlier commenter unwittingly indicated the full absurdity of this notion when she wrote, apparently in all seriousness, that

“Discrimination is not acceptable. Ever.”

Really? Shall we legislate to end the wickedness of gender-segregated bathrooms, then? What a joke. Actually, let’s develop the bathroom example into an analogy. Let’s suppose we have a men’s bathroom which contains a toilet and a tap and sink, and a women’s bathroom which contains a toilet and a tap and sink, so the two rooms differ only in name. For the gaymarriage lobby to insist on calling their repulsive relationships ‘marriages’ is like someone demanding to use the bathroom of his or her opposite sex and refusing to use the bathroom proper to his or her own sex despite the fact that the two rooms are the same (which, we are expected to believe, is the case with opposite-sex marriage and so-called same-sex marriage). But of course, the weakness of this analogy is that real marriage and gaymarriage are not the same: the former is based on the expression of conjugal love, the latter is based on consensual violence. The family based on marriage is prior to the State, and all the State can and should do about it is discriminate in favour of it and discriminate against attempts to corrupt it.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
http://cardinalpole.blogspot.com
Thank You!
Your comment will be reviewed by a moderator for approval.

***

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Philomena, Virgin, Martyr, A.D. 2009

2 comments:

Louise said...

Well said, Pole. Your argument was too coherent and therefore not published!

Cardinal Pole said...

"Well said, Pole."

Thanks, Louise.

"Your argument was too coherent and therefore not published!"

Strange, isn't it? I've had several comments published there with the same tone and style, yet they pick this one to censor. I suppose they have a large team of moderators, so perhaps it just happened that my comment was reviewed by a particularly ill-disposed one.