A new poll of Conservative Party members in the UK has found that Conservative MP, David Cameron, is out of step with his own party over gay marriage.
Meanwhile, a former speechwriter for David Cameron goes on and on about how Churches' hostility to gay marriage only underlines their impotence. Got to be careful with the type of person you get as a speechwriter, otherwise they can be unduly influence over a person's views, especially someone who needs to be popular like politicians.
Related link: Tories warn PM that he's splitting his party over gay marriage, as leadership speculation mounts ~ The Independant
David Cameron has been warned that his backing for gay marriage is splitting the Conservatives and that he has underestimated the strong opposition to it in his own party.There have been more than a few articles along these lines for a while now. John Key here in New Zealand, should take note.
A survey of more than 2,500 Conservative Party members for The Independent found that a huge majority reject his arguments for legalising same-sex marriage.
The findings come amid renewed speculation among some Tory MPs that Mr Cameron could face a leadership challenge before the next general election. His critics fear that the UK Independence Party will exploit the opposition to gay marriage among natural Conservative supporters. They claim he will alienate Tory MPs further and if he fails to offer an "in or out" referendum on Britain's EU membership in a speech in the new year.
"Gay marriage is a toxic mix," one Tory MP said. "We are in danger of playing into Ukip's hands." Cameron allies dismiss leadership speculation as coming from long-standing critics.
The poll, carried out by the ConservativeHome website, found that seven out of 10 Tory members (71 per cent) believe that same-sex marriage is splitting the party and that three out of four (78 per cent) believe the Prime Minister has underestimated the strength of feeling.
Although Mr Cameron's standing among gay people has improved, according to another survey this week, most Tory members are unimpressed. Some 62 per cent believe he should worry more about traditional Tory supporters like church-goers and less about winning over others such as gay rights campaigners.
A majority of Tory members (64 per cent) think gay marriage is unnecessary because gay people can already opt for civil partnerships, while 32 per cent disagree. Almost six out of 10 (58 per cent) believe that marriage "should remain between one man and one woman", while 34 per cent disagree.
Only 38 per cent agree with the proposition that "marriage is an institution that brings two people together and there is no reason why two people should not be two men, two women or a man and a woman," while 58 per cent disagree. Mr Cameron's concessions to his Tory critics – including the proposal to make gay marriage illegal in the Church of England – appear to cut little ice. A minority (43 per cent) agree with the statement that they would not object to same-sex marriage as along as religious liberty is protected, while 51 per cent disagree.
Only one in three Conservative members (36 per cent) admires Mr Cameron for "standing up for gay equality", while 55 per cent do not.Seven out of 10 (71 per cent) think same-sex marriage will not be a "big issue" at the next election.
Some 2,568 Torys took part in the survey between 22 and 26 December.
Meanwhile, a former speechwriter for David Cameron goes on and on about how Churches' hostility to gay marriage only underlines their impotence. Got to be careful with the type of person you get as a speechwriter, otherwise they can be unduly influence over a person's views, especially someone who needs to be popular like politicians.
Related link: Tories warn PM that he's splitting his party over gay marriage, as leadership speculation mounts ~ The Independant
Got to be careful with the type of person you get as a speechwriter, otherwise they can be unduly influence over a person's views, especially someone who needs to be popular like politicians.
ReplyDeleteNo, the very best politicians do what is right, not necessarily what is popular.
The owning of slaves was once very popular, as was the treatment of women as property. I recall a time not so long ago when murdering people for their religion also held popular sway in a large part of Europe.
Even your own Pope has spoken out in favour of extending marriage to all.
The question of the family is not just about a particular social construct, but about man himself—about what he is and what it takes to be authentically human. The challenges involved are manifold. First of all there is the question of the human capacity to make a commitment or to avoid commitment. Can one bind oneself for a lifetime?
If making lifelong commitments is so profoundly good for us as individuals and for humanity in general, why does this magically not apply to gay people who want to make such a commitment?
What would the Pope say to John Ziegler, the hundred-year-old South Carolina poet who published a book about his partner of forty-nine years?
WWJD? He certainly had nothing to say on the subject.
LRO,
ReplyDeleteTrue, the very best politicians do what is right, not popular. However, it is not right for the governments to redefine marriage, no matter how popular it is.
Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out against the redefinition of marriage consistently. That is obvious to anyone reading his entire speech, from which you take only a part and then selectively interpret it. Here's the link: Benedict XVI: The Church supports families and values. From the beginning of the very next paragraph after the one you quote from:
"The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, made up of father, mother, and child, goes much deeper. While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question. He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being.
I'd recommend you read the whole speech, rather than just bits of it to really understand what the Holy Father is saying here.
WWJD? He certainly had nothing to say on the subject.
ReplyDeleteJesus said quite a lot about sexual morality that expanded upon what His audience (mostly Israel) already knew, to even saying that what you desire in your heart is very much like a physical act (ie Mt 5:27-28) . All sin starts in the heart. FromChrist Appeals to Man's Heart:
"In addition to the commandment, "You shall not commit adultery," the Decalogue has also, "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife."(2) In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ connects them with each other, in a way: "Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." However, it is not so much a question of distinguishing the scope of those two commandments of the Decalogue as of pointing out the dimension of the interior action, referred to also in the words: "You shall not commit adultery."
This action finds its visible expression in the "act of the body," an act in which the man and the woman participate against the law of matrimonial exclusiveness. The casuistry of the books of the Old Testament aimed at investigating what constituted this "act of the body" according to exterior criteria. At the same time, it was directed at combating adultery, and opened to the latter various legal "loopholes."(3) In this way, on the basis of the multiple compromises "for hardness of heart" (Mt 19:8), the meaning of the commandment as willed by the legislator underwent a distortion. People kept to legalistic observance of the formula, which did not superabound in the interior justice of hearts.
Christ shifts the essence of the problem to another dimension when he says: "Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (According to ancient translations, the text is: "...has already made her an adulteress in his heart," a formula which seems to be more exact).(4)
In this way, therefore, Christ appeals to the interior man. He does so several times and under different circumstances. In this case it seems especially explicit and eloquent, not only with regard to the configuration of evangelical ethos, but also with regard to the way of viewing man. Not only the ethical reason, but also the anthropological one makes it advisable to dwell at greater length on the text of Matthew 5:27-28, which contains the words Christ spoke in the Sermon on the Mount."
What would be the point about going on and on and on about the evils of goat humping in New Zealand when it's not a problem here and we all know it's a bad thing to do, while as there are definitely other countries in the world where it needs to be mentioned. The same with Our Lord, He didn't need to mention anything about the immorality of same-sex activity because His audience already considered this type of thing an abomination.
To say that Jesus said nothing about same-sex activity is to cast Him in a different role and not take what He said explicitly into account, ie "Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17)
With regard to politicians, it is also reasonable to expect that they follow the party manifesto - the articulation of principles and policies that allow voters to decide who they want as their REPRESENTATIVE in parliament.
ReplyDeleteTo fail to represent the people who granted them the power to make laws ON THEIR BEHALF is a failure of representative democracy.
ZT, you seem to spend your life in a state of perpetual confusion, this time about just what a representative democracy is.
ReplyDeleteTo fail to represent the people who granted them the power to make laws ON THEIR BEHALF is a failure of representative democracy.
Every time parliament makes or amends a law, it is because they are acting on behalf of the nation, not just the narrow group that may have voted for them.
What you are advocating is not representative democracy, it is a dictatorship of the party machine.
Because we have a representative democracy, you get regular opportunities to punish or reward your representatives, to keep them on or replace them.
CMIIW, but I seem to recall a number of occasions where you argue for CIR, and that is the opposite of representative democracy.
True, the very best politicians do what is right, not popular. However, it is not right for the governments to redefine marriage, no matter how popular it is.
ReplyDeleteStill struggling with the concepts of right and popular, I see.
As marriage in New Zealand is covered by the Marriage Act 1955, and act of parliament, then parliament can amend this act and thus that which is or is not defined as marriage. Don't like it? Too bad, that's the way representative democracy works.
I assume you do know that The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, is a rabid leader of the move against same sex marriage in France, that he is a homophobe and is quite adept at lying to support his cause.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised you didn't also quote from Archbishop Nichols who seems to think that sex outside marriage is somehow Orwellian. Has he read Orwell?
Maybe you also missed the Bishoop of Shrewsbury who took the time to make the claim that the people who are trying to legalise Gay Marriage are like Nazis and Communists. Godwinning your own argument works, amiright?
To say that Jesus said nothing about same-sex activity is to cast Him in a different role and not take what He said explicitly into account, ie "Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17)
Yeah yeah, sure Ted.
So how do you reconcile that with all the other laws you ignore on a daily basis? The ones to do with diet, clothing, disciplining children, swearing oaths.
LRO - Representative democracy is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected people representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.
ReplyDeleteYou are the one who is confused.
LRO said: "Because we have a representative democracy, you get regular opportunities to punish or reward your representatives, to keep them on or replace them."
More accurately, because we have elections. Issues like list votes and party votes and Maori seats impact on how representative our democracy is.
And just because I point out what representative democracy is about, doesn't mean I support it 100%. That is a constant misconception you seem to get about reading other people's arguments.
it's exactly because of the side effect of party politics that I am interested in more direct democracy initiatives. Our elected representatives routinely ignore the will of the people, and make decisions they have no mandate for, and many of those decisions are highly contentious.
So what are you saying, LRO? That marriage didn't exist in New Zealand until the Government defined it in various Acts, the latest (though somewhat gutted) being 1955?
ReplyDeleteExcept that the Government, or any government, does not define marriage. Marriage existed before New Zealand existed, all that has happened is that the Government has registered and regulated marriages, not defined them.
No at all Lucia, simply pointing out that as marriage in NZ is regulated by an Act of Parliament it can be redefined anytime parliament sees fit to do so. If you read the Act, you will see it does define marriage.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, marriage did exist in NZ prior to the Marriage Act 1955 which itself replaced an earlier Marriage Act.
And yes, marriage has also existed, been defined and been redefined many times prior to the existence of your particular brand of mythology.
Neither your nor your pope own marriage, and you cannot and will not stand in the way of progress.
But, at the same time, no one is going to force you in to a same sex marriage, so how about a little 'live and let live" and a whole lot of reflection on all the "laws and the prophets" that you ignore daily?
LRO,
ReplyDeleteBut, at the same time, no one is going to force you in to a same sex marriage, so how about a little 'live and let live" and a whole lot of reflection on all the "laws and the prophets" that you ignore daily?
If you are talking about Biblical laws in the Old Testament, those laws that I ignore are no longer in force, just like the laws of the old Roman Empire are no longer in force. It's important to understand the difference between laws that are eternal (those that Our Lord was talking about that He came to fulfill), and those that are created for the times.
The Magisterium defines those for me, so I don't have to be a Biblical scholar myself.
As for live and let live, would you be saying the same thing if we were debating legalising cannibalism between consenting adults, or are some things just too dangerous for a society to sanction?
The Magisterium defines those for me, so I don't have to be a Biblical scholar myself.
ReplyDeleteMust be so nice to outsource your thinking.
If it were me, I'd be wondering how "the magisterium" reconciles that with Matt 5:18.
As for live and let live, would you be saying the same thing if we were debating legalising cannibalism between consenting adults, or are some things just too dangerous for a society to sanction?
I doubt you'd find too many people volunteering to be eaten.
Outsourcing is flawed? Secular humanists do it - trusting the pronouncements of various experts without needing to spend years learning about it oneself.
ReplyDeleteRather than get a law degree for example, I consult a lawyer for tricky legal matters. Saves heaps of time, and if you care to research on the output of the magesterium no doubt you would find the answers you seek reconciling Matt 5:18.
As for voluntary cannibalism, I wouldn't think there would be a market for it, but I got it wrong with regard to voluntary buggery, so who can say?