The following is a summary of the logic of an article opposing gay marriage by Cardinal O’Brien with commentary by me in italics. The original article is called “We Cannot Afford to Indulge this Madness.”
The Government will consult the public on gay marriage.
The Cardinal wishes the public to sign a petition `in support of traditional marriage’.
When civil partnerships were introduced, supporters said they did not want gay marriage. This disbars them from now seeking it.
Comment: Why? Does the Cardinal believe he has a contract founded on statements made by supporters of civil partnerships?
Since civil partnerships confer `all the legal rights of marriage’, supporters of gay marriage are not making a proposal to equalise rights.
Comment: One of the `legal rights of marriage’ includes the right to call the ceremony `marriage’. Any other term is certainly different and the difference allows for different classes of rights. Gay people may then say their position is inferior.
Because of argument 2, the proposal “is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists.”
Comment: This assumes that marriage of heterosexual couples is changed by the marriage of homosexual couples. No argument is supplied for this claim. If the proposal is as the Cardinal claims a minority view, then it will fail at the consultation and the Cardinal does not have a problem.
The proposal represents a redefinition of marriage. “It will redefine society since the institution of marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of society.”
Comment: Unsupported. The marriage rate has been in any case declining rapidly. ONS: `the provisional 2010 general marriage rate for England and Wales still represents one of the lowest rates since they were first calculated in 1862”.
The repercussions of enacting same-sex marriage into law will be immense.
Comment: Why? What are they? And will they be bad? How do we know that?
“[W]ords whose meaning has been clearly understood in every society throughout history [cannot] suddenly be changed to mean something else.
Comment: This is just false.
[T}eacher[s] who want[…] to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman will be in difficulty.
Comment: not obvious what the problem is here. It looks as though the teacher will be making a false statement. The modal claim is falsified by the proposition’s passing. The historical claim is true. It is unclear what the penalties are for teachers making false statements, but I doubt they are that severe.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines marriage as a relationship between men and women.
Comment: True, but how do we know that document is right?
Changing the meaning of the term redefines reality, which is insane.
Comment: it changes the meaning of a term, which seems to happen a lot. It would be unfortunate if that sufficed for insanity.
Marriage existed before Governments, so they cannot change it.
Comment: This again is just false. The Cardinal will later introduce the example of slavery. That also existed before governments, but he is against it.
People previously thought that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Comment: It appears they have changed their minds. Is there a problem with this?
The purpose of marriage is to ensure that children have a mother and father.
Comment: How do we know that two homosexual people cannot raise children as well? The Cardinal owes us some data here. My understanding is that the data points the opposite way to what he would wish.
If marriage can be between two men, we will have to allow three men or a woman and two men to marry as well.
Comment: This seems false to me, but if true, who cares? It seems odd to me, and I wouldn’t do it, but I don’t have clear grounds for preventing others from doing it. Perhaps my small-mindedness in this respect will be shown to be such by future practice.
In Massachusetts, homosexual fairy (sic) stories appeared in schools after gay marriage was legalised.
Comment: I greatly enjoy the Cardinal’s pun at this point. This is a separate issue however. If you don’t want this, it does not seem to be entailed by gay marriage. Also an argument as to why it would be bad is needed.
The Government is arrogant when it says that churches can opt out, because churches have moral authority and the Government does not.
Comment. This seems rather churlish as a response to what appears to be the Government allowing churches to make their own decisions, even if society thinks they should not.
Gay marriage being legalised in this way is like slavery being legalised with the proviso that no one will be forced to keep a slave.
Comment: It is not, because no parties to gay marriage enter the agreement without consenting to it. Also society thinks slavery is wrong; we will find out whether it thinks the same about gay marriage.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is correct (again).
Comment: see above.
It is self-evident that argument 17 is correct.
The success of the proposal will forfeit the trust the people have placed in the Government.
Comment: This seems radically implausible, since it would mean that the respondents to the consultation blame the Government for the responses they themselves gave.
The success of the proposal will shame the UK in the eyes of the world.
Comment: This is perhaps true, though I do not know what national shame is, why we should care about it, what it would be based upon, and whether it is a price worth paying.
Conclusion on Gay Marriage
I conclude that none of the Cardinal’s arguments go through.
The article may be found at: