Tuesday, 22 January 2013
Anthony Ozimic fights 3-1 pounding and wins on points
Calm, dispassionate and devastatingly effective, Anthony Ozimic of SPUC argued against the promotion of same-sex marriage in schools on ITV's "This Morning."
It was quite typical of British television that he not only had to answer his invited guest opponent - that would be fair enough - but also the relentless hostile questioning of both presenters on the opposite sofa. There was not even the pretence of impartiality.
At one point, the instant audience reaction was 80% for and 20% against teaching gay marriage in schools, but by the end the gap had narrowed to 60% - 40%. In such an arena, arguing alone against three opponents, this was a highly significant swing. At the end, even the presenters had to acknowledge this and managed to admit that the debate was "interesting."
Congratulations to Anthony for this sterling defence of marriage and to SPUC for their determined campaign on this issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Across the Atlantic, they are marking the fortieth anniversary of Roe v Wade, when the Supreme Court did exactly as the supposedly sacrosanct Constitution entitles it to do and overturned the laws of all 50 states with no democratic accountability whatever.
Meanwhile, we in Britain are witnessing the row over the campaigning role of SPUC, as such, against the redefinition of legal marriage so as to include same-sex couples.
Initially, I could see the point. I have been in and around SPUC (it is fairly loose-knit) for 20 years, and this did not seem like quite what it, as SPUC, was for.
But I have been thinking, not without distaste. Unlike that legally sexless arrangement, a civil partnership, a marriage requires consummation.
Brace yourself, gentle reader, but if the orifice of male defecation is to be considered the legal equivalent of that through which a woman gives birth, then their respective products must surely be treated equivalently, too.
Every day, those products, respectively human waste and human beings, are already being treated as not merely equivalent, but for all practical purposes identical. Perhaps the present debate will focus the mind on that horrific fact?
So yes, this is very much an integral part of the pro-life cause.
Thank you for posting this. He did a fabulous job and under heavy fire.
Sorry Father but did we watch the same video?
Primarily this bordered on the 'pray away the gay' bible belt baloney which is utterly inappropriate for the discussion.
It was Mr Ozimic's personal opinion on highly contestable issues on homosexual identity which had no place while he speaking as a representative of spuc.
Secondly this is about marriage abolition - with ironically 'sex' being the eliminated criteria - and schools being forced by law to no longer be able to teach that marriage has anything to do with having and raising kids but about finding a life-partner of either gender. Any conscientious objection to this paradigm will be made a criminal offence.
Thirdly as sex will not be part of marriage - the unleasehed reins now mean that combined with 'citizenship' and 'personal development' educationalist principles - 'sex education' will no longer be restricted in its equivocations of contraception and STI-prevention - but will now have the 'equality excuse' to teach sexual practices of any type on a 'life preparation/self-flourishment' agenda.
Fourthly Mr Ozimic made the same categorical error that practically every commentator on this issue [especially Catholic Voices] has made in regard to the nature and aim of marriage. As Aquinas reminds us
ST III, 29, 2
I answer that, Marriage or wedlock is said to be true by reason of its attaining its perfection.
Now perfection of anything is twofold; first, and second. The first perfection of a thing consists in its very form, from which it receives its species; while the second perfection of a thing consists in its operation, by which in some way a thing attains its end.
Now the form of matrimony consists in a certain inseparable union of souls, by which husband and wife are pledged by a bond of mutual affection that cannot be sundered.
And the end of matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children: the first of which is attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the other duties of husband and wife, by which they help one another in rearing their offspring.
So there is absolutely NO excuse to persistently fall into the trap of incorrectly saying the nature/purpose of marriage is the bearing and raising of children [rather than that being its end/aim] and being justifiably confronted with 'well what about infertile couples?' and 'homosexuals can adoopt'
Fifthly there was one point where the journalist was right - one can use statistics to prove anything - and fighting on utilitarian grounds is one of the major reasons that every public debate on the issue has catastrophically failed [just look at the embarrassing farcical failures accruing on youtube - 345:21 was the oxford union debate result - and why? Failure to argue the case] - false-dependance upon statistical consequences convinces nobody regarding the rightness/wrongness of an issue - especially where they're hyperbolic to the point of fabulism. e.g. citing the Texan findings that the children raised by homosexual couples are more likely to end up poor, criminal, psychologically disturbed and drug-abusers is too ludicrous to be believed [especially given homosexuals are generally more affluent].
I'm sorry Father but up to this point in the fight to stop the abolition of marriage we have failed abysmally - and any back-slapping and praise for 'a job well done' by any media spokesperson or public representative [sans +Davies & +Egan] is frankly undeserved and unearned.
At present I'm hoping and praying for a miracle - because without it we're going to lose.
..and if we can't fight this battle properly? What happens when the real persecutions begin?
I have no desire to be a Jonah or a Cassandra - but we really have to start getting our act together or we're sunk!
Anthony showed wonderful skill in his presenttion. He refused to be pulled into side issues into which the opposite speaker tried to draw him with what was obvious contempt for anyone disagreeing with her. I am sure if the poll had gone on longer we would have had the same result as the Guardian had in an all day poll several months ago. The pro marriage ahead, gradually being overtaken by the anti marriage. The Guuardian was so annoyed that having announced the poll would last all day and end at llpm at 10pm they pulled the plug on fairness when they saw that about 70 per cent were against same sex marrige and only 30 per cent for. They just set up their own figures as the result at llpm which showed aout 53 per cent for and 47 per cent against. but then most polls feel they must reflect our `new society` and are happy to fix things.
Yes, well done him! It must be very difficult to keep calm in such circumstances.
I was at an event last night at which Archbishop Peter Smith spoke about his meetings with Government ministers over 'gay marriage'. He related that they just seemed to 'switch off' whenever he offered arguments based in reason and the natural law on why marriage can only be between a man and a woman. They had no arguments to counter his bar, 'this is the modern age' and so on. They also couldn't comprehend why the Church is concerned about the common good, and thought that his only concerns in this matter would revolve around 'religious rights'.
The Archbishop thought that one of the reasons people who are for 'same-sex marriage' refuse to use their reason in thinking about this issue is that, deep down, they know that the Church's position is right (and supremely rational) and they don't want to see their subjective beliefs unravel before their very eyes. They'd rather appeal to emotive arguments or just 'glaze over' than use their reason or basic common sense.
The Archbishop said we must keep preaching, teaching and expressing the truth in love, with the reasoned arguments that appeal to rational beings. In the end, those who are open to objective reasoning and the truth will, hopefully, be won over. Sadly, though, in the brave new world in which we now live, appeals to reason fall on deaf ears, bizarrely and ironically because subjectivity is the new rationalism, and all claim to be 'rationalists'! As Archbishop Peter reminded us, Our Lord was also rejected by men who just 'didn't want to hear the truth.'
OTSOTA - I'm not sure we did watch the same video. In the one I saw, Anthony did not speak of prayer and did not use any arguments from the Bible or specifically Christian teaching. He actually pointed this out to the presenter.
Useful point from St Thomas, though.
I thought it was a good performance, but agree with OTSOTA that he was unwise to touch on issues of homosexual identity; after all, the Catechism does say that 'Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained' (2357). One of the problems, it seems to me, is that the law doesn't distinguish between orientation and activity, and it doesn't help to muddy the waters.
I think we need to stress that equality is not an absolute value but a relative one. In practice, this means that if you accord one set of people equal rights, you take them away from another - in this case the children.
Congratulations to Anthony Ozimic.
He made his points clearly, calmly, and dispassionately, leaving his three prejudiced opponents beating the air, unable to offer any constructive statements, other than a final, insincere 'how shocking!', from the young woman presenter.
Yes, all power to Anthony, he did do a very good job.
I've been in a similar situation on Sunday Morning Live on BBC1, when the presenter lost her alleged impartiality and it's very difficult to remain calm and on topic when you are being barracked in 3 different directions.
By remaining calm and sticking to the facts, Anthony leant his arguments authority, but he was also helped by his opponent who could do nothing other than mouth her outrage that he dared to express his opinion and came across as shouty and unreasonable.
In terms of the arguments, it is entirely correct to stick to the point about how marriage undermines the family. On a show with a particular target audience such as This Morning, getting into theological niceties is going to cause the audience simply to switch off and it is best to argue on a purely secular level for an organisation such as SPUC. I would venture that most viewers simply wouldn't wish to engage or wrestle with the complex theology, they simply want to know why he or they should oppose 'gay marriage' being taught in schools.
Philip Schofield was excellent in that he refused to allow the other contributor to talk over Anthony. Also, I think it's important to note, given how we are always complaining about biased media coverage, that ITV were very fair in that they allowed him a good chunk of time, almost 10 minutes in which he was able to cover a lot of ground and make many strong points.
My only teensy point was whether or not the Terence Higgins Trust material could be misleading, but, its easy for us all to be armchair critics and a lot more difficult when one is in the hot-seat so to speak.
Anthony Ozimic is a brave man. I wonder whether any of us could have done as well.
OTSOTA: You conflate nature with purpose. I would have thought purpose comes under telos as in aim or end. In any case I cannot see that your argument on that point really helps. Surely one needs to draw attention to both nature and purpose/end/aim even this evokes the responses you mention which are fairly easily rebuffed.
David Lindsay: I think the unpleasant business of defining consummation in a same-sex union is to be left to the Judges who will no doubt come up with some woolly definition like a kiss on the lips being sufficient.
It will be interesting to see whether having a communicable venereal disease at the time of 'marriage' will be grounds for annulment in a same-sex marriage as in current marriage law. In a Civil Partnership it is not grounds for annulment for reasons which one can only speculate about.
It was of course, typical, in my experience that to be anti this marrige bill is to be homophobic. Every time, that accusation is flung at people trying to argue their case. The truth of the matter is that it's far better to argue that it warrants an intolerable lack of tolerance towards almost all religions which argue it's wrong. You can get that through to most people. The truth is that the armies of Satan are set out in terrible array against us on this, and it will take more than just good logical argument to destroy them. St Michael, pray for us!
Anthony did extremely well under enormous pressure: I could feel myself getting extremely worked up just watching it, and he managed to remain cool and articulate. Very well done.
Particularly impressive as the question posed seems to assume that same sex marriage is already here and the only question is what to say about it in schools. OTSOTA is wrong (and he knows I think this as we've had it out in the CH comboxes!) about the philosophical nature of the arguments here, but he's right about the need to go easy on the back-slapping: in some ways, the whole business was set up to show three right thinking people expressing horror at someone with outrageous views trying to stop our kids from learning about love. I hope that Anthony's intelligence and reasonableness undermined that picture. but the general shape of the show (like so many others) is such as to reinforce particularly to the casual viewer the idea that normal people believe in gay marriage and only a minority of weirdos don't.
What you do about that, I haven't the foggiest.
Well done to Anthony and to SPUC for being a loud and clear voice on this issue. He did very well and stayed calm throughout, though, I imagine, it is difficult to do so when you have Holly Willoughby gasping and shaking her head at you.
I have already had this conversation ad nauseam on Facebook and I don't wish to continue it here; however I'll just interject that this television interview was a crisis of Catholic evangelization:
1. The denial that 'same-sex love' is structured towards raising children (irrespective that research and studies suggest otherwise - a Wikipedia will corroborate this);
2. The Section 28 posturing that homosexuality might not be natural and might be best not taught at school (we repealed said law nearly ten years ago);
3. The denial of homosexual agency by suggesting such desires are 'not innate' (this is homophobic narrative that tends to associate homosexuality with addiction or some other undesirable but controllable 'behaviour');
4. The regurgitated pathological narratives of homosexual persons ("I think something may have gone wrong in the person's development or experiences to lead them towards a homosexual orientation...") - Not even the Church makes such uncharitable, unfounded - in light of medical science - and ultimately deleterious assertions about human people;
5. The scaremongering that same-sex marriage will be the advent of schools teaching - promoting and indoctrinating - homosexuality into children;
6. The coupling of promiscuity and homosexuality (as opposed to heterosexual couples who presumably are chaste exemplars of virtue)
6. And finally the advocacy of the psychological suppression of homosexuality as opposed to coming out.
I cannot express in words how horrified I found this video and I am saddened for any gay Catholics that had to be subjected to this and to any other Christians that were subject to this man's hate filled ideas.
Aaron - You may not agree with what he said, but there was no hatred shown by Anthony. This "hatred" accusation is flung around in place of reasoned debate.
The Catechism teaches that homosexuality is disordered.
To suggest that homosexuality is not innate is not "homophobic", there is an ongoing debate on this question.
I don't think it is helpful to describe a reasoned contribution to a debate as horrific, homophobic and hate-filled.
The Catechism teaches that homosexuality is disordered insofar as it is not ordered towards the generation of offspring.
Homosexuality is the moral equivalent of masturbation or any sex not ordered towards procreation (given the aggravating sin when two people are involved as opposed to a lone person).
If the Church and her members (i.e. Anthony) want to start bandying about that *I* might have had something gone wrong in my upbringing then those members should really check the science on this which fortunately is foregone and conclusive.
For a Church that preaches to be founded on Christ himself (something I don't dispute) we sure do a terrible job at making present the love of God when we're telling homosexuals that they're suffering from a physical/ mental disease (which is what these pathology narratives are about).
I even have a Catholic friend of Catholic Voices (I wont name him) who posted a Facebook post on what a disaster the interview was. This was emphatically *not* a win for the Catholics, and all we do is polarize discussion: us self-congratulating whilst the rest of society sits aghast and angry.
I'm fed up of having to answer for the homophobia of a Church that I love because of a minority of men that cannot keep their unfriendly and unscientific opinions to themselves. Anthony was compared to 'Bible belt America': when we're compared to Protestants in our rhetoric we must ask what's going wrong in our conversation.
In Christ,
A.
The Catechism (2358) speaks of the "inclination" as being objectively disordered. This is not the same as saying that it is a disease - and Anthony did not say that either. Many men with same-sex attraction do speak of influences during their childhood and adolescence which are relevant to the feelings that they have (see for example "The Bones you have crushed my thrill" blog for eloquent discussion on this subject.)
Comparing reasoned arguments from the natural law to "bible belt America" is a common tactic used also in the abortion debate against pro-lifers.
There is a lively discussion over how best to present the arguments from natural law. OTSOTA, for example will often pose objections that are worth listening to. But I simply don't go along with the "homophobia" narrative.
Dear Aaron,
Some time ago there was an interesting and useful discussion between yourself and Cosmos on this blog when there seemed to be some mutual understanding at the end whereas at the beginning you were making accusations of homophobia. However you have now returned to such accusations in respect of the Church. I find that disappointing.
Whether the homosexual inclination is due to nature or nurture is an open question - I would have thought that it was possibly both but you say " the science on this which fortunately is foregone and conclusive". Perhaps you could explain what that science says. Are you saying it is entirely nature or innate?
It seems to me that some people may have very strong sexual urges as a result of their hormonal makeup at birth whilst others have very weak sexual urges. But how you deal with those urges must surely depend very much upon nurture i.e. early experiences. I would have thought that this is applicable to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. One can think of a heterosexual with a very strong innate sexual urge who has a very bad example from his parents which leads him into a life of sexual sin. Could not the same be envisaged for somebody born with a tendency towards homosexuality?
I cannot see that your objection to Anthony was other than that he suggested that nurture rather than nature played a greater role. What is wrong with that - it is surely not hateful to say that?
Whether any of the more extreme cases of homosexuals or heterosexuals ever become pathological is another matter with which I do not think we need to concern ourselves with in this discussion.
Aaron: I might just add that in respect of Catholic Voices some of them seem to have an unfortunate attitude towards SPUC. SPUC has done sterling work and sometimes this has led to criticism of the stance taken by certain Bishops. CV have a problem in that they tend to see their primary role as supporting the Bishops even when there is an apparent disjunction with the teaching of the Church - notably over recognition of Civil Partnerships. Thus I suspect your friend's comment was in the context of that issue rather than anything specific said by Anthony.
Nicolas, speaking as a member of Catholic Voices who has been very openly critical of spuc, it's worth noting that we do not speak as a homogenous mass on matters outside of church doctrine. Many of my colleagues are avid supporters, of spuc others are not, but this is personal opinion.
I watched Anthony with a critical eye expecting the worst and was pleasantly surprised. That another of my colleagues was disparaging is not authoritative any more than my opinion is.
In his shoes I perhaps would have avoided falling into the trap set by the presenter, but this is such a difficult topic to get right and its not so easy when you are there in the studio under pressure from 3 aggressive participants.
As the question was about the teaching of gay marriage, with hindsight I perhaps would have stuck more on topic about the benefits of a traditional family, the rights of a child and I think I would have thrown in the vast amount of data about the health risks that homosexuality and the practice of sodomy carries. It isn't something we should be normalising. I may have handled the question about my children differently too.
But that doesn't mean that Anthony was wrong, it's tough being winsome on this topic and staying calm, measured, reasonable and comprehensible is a job well done. When it comes to what causes homosexuality, the science is truly out and it wasn't worth getting bogged down in that issue. Fact is, it's a minority niche practice and not something we should be encouraging children to try regardless of gender.
Aaron, I absolutely do not want my children taught that gay marriage is a good thing nor about homosexual sex. Neither do I want them to be encouraged to experiment with 'safer' consensual sex. Parents like me will have to teach our children that the law is wrong and to fight against the culture being taught in schools. Effectively Catholic children are being denied their cultural birthright and parents are being forced to home-school in the name of equalityfor a small minority.
The whole thing makes me furious. Children's wellbeing is being trumped in favour of gay rights. We should be matching on the streets in protest.
If you are not worshipping The God Who desires that we overcome our disordered inclinations, including our disordered sexual inclinations, and sin no more, you are not worshipping The True God, The God of our Salvation.
Wow--that really was 3 on 1; the hosts and lady would just start babbling over whatever he was saying in a rational, polite, and concise manner
As the mother of a daughter who struggles with same -sex attraction, I know my daughter suffers from an emotional issue as the result of the perfect storm. It is because I Love my daughter, as I Love all my children, that I want her to develop healthy and Holy relationships that are grounded in authentic Love.
The Pope should inform The Bishops that we need to Pray for respect for The Sanctity of every Human Life, and for The Sanctity of Marriage and The Family at every Mass from now until the end of Time.
The Pro-Life Cause is about affirming and sustaining Life from creation to natural death. Nothing is added to or subtracted from the DNA of a human person from the moment of conception, thus a human person, from the moment of conception, is wholly human. Roe v Wade is based upon the lie that we cannot affirm personhood for the son or daughter residing in their mother's womb, even though it is a self-evident truth that from the beginning, a human person can only conceive a human person.
Post a Comment