This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Why I'm proud to be a Christian and a socialist

SeanSantos's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by SeanSantos

The weirdest section to me was this:

As a Christian socialist, I would travel to the ends of the Earth to uphold all of the human rights of my gay brothers and sisters. Yet, no matter which way I look at it, I can find nothing pejorative to the gay community in the church's simple reaffirmation of the meaning of the word "marriage"; civil partnerships already ensure gay couples all their human rights and the protection of the state. The concept of marriage, though, is absolutely crucial to the faith and tradition of millions of Christians. It is not difficult to conclude, then, that for the small lobby driving the proposal the issue is less about gay rights and more about attacking Christian beliefs.

For one, the Church does not merely say that same-sex relationships are not "marriages", but that they are morally wrong. For another, denying the label "marriage" is not a mere matter of definitions (if it was, the Catholic Church would be free to simply say that it would use its own theological jargon, and accept that their usage of the word was different from everyone else's).

No, the Catholic Church is saying instead that gay people are not good enough for marriage. That interfaith marriages and marriages between divorced persons, while not recognized by the Church, are tolerable, but that same-sex marriages are not. One would think that the pejorative implications would be obvious.

And even if the concept of marriage is "absolutely crucial" to Christians, it is also crucial to many non-Christians. This "crucial to the faith and tradition of millions" bit is a red herring. Those millions do not have a monopoly on the concept, or a patent that they can enforce against other millions of human beings. And yet with a straight face many Catholics talk as if the Church somehow had an inherent right to define marriage even for non-adherents.

Finally, I have to wonder how McKenna thinks gay rights activists think. It sounds like he really believes that they wake up in the morning and think something like this:

You know, I'm really tired of being talked about as if I weren't a normal human being, and I'm really tired of all these legal discrepancies and inconsistencies between my rights and other people's. But what really gets me going is the thought of viciously attacking Catholic people by disagreeing with them on an issue that actually has no impact on their own lives whatsoever. My rights aren't that important; I mostly just want to annoy bishops.

How narcissistic.

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:14:27 UTC | #872714