Cardinal complains that ‘gays have too much fun for marriage’

Following new government plans for gay marriage, Catholic commentators have crawled out of the woodwork to bitch and moan to anyone who’ll listen, despite the fact that marriage has been around for far longer than the Catholic Church and it has only taken on a strongly religious context after the Church spotted the money-making opportunities in the 12th Century.

Cardinal Keith O’Brien called the plans a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right” and went on to say that “It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father“. (N.B. O’Brien’s claims about gay marriage breaching human rights stem from a misinterpretation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

O’Brien’s comments were described as “a bit rich” by Paolo Viscardi, who went on to say “The need for both a father and mother is a biological one that ends with conception. Further, a human right is only meaningful when enforceable, yet the loss of a parent or parents is impossible to prevent in many instances, thereby making the ‘right’ for a child to have both a mother and father meaningless”.

Viscardi went on to say “There is no reason to suppose that a loving same-sex couple would fail in their care of children – indeed I believe they would do a far better job than, for example, a Catholic orphanage. O’Brien should check John 8:7. Members of the Catholic clergy have committed a host of human rights abuses against children and such abuse has been endemic in parts of the Catholic Church. O’Brien may have apologised for such abuses in the past, but to claim that the loving union of a same-sex couple is an abuse of human rights twists the meaning of that section of the Declaration of Human Rights and it throws the self-deluded sense of sexual morality held by the Catholic clergy into stark relief.”

Image

Cardinal Jack Hackett

*Notably, more priests have stepped up to condemn gay marriage than have gone on record condemning child abuse by members of the Catholic clergy. The Irish Cardinal Jack Hackett, suggested that this was because many priests believe that “Sex is a sin unless it is intended to bring forth new life in the agonies of the woman as God intended. By abusing children the Catholic clergy are teaching them that sex is a dirty business that causes great suffering.”

Cardinal Jack Hackett finished by saying “Gays have too much fun to get married. Marriage is not about having fun, it’s about having babies and being miserable for the glory of God“.

*N.B. This last section may not be entirely true, but it paraphrases the jist of several arguments I’ve heard in the past.

If you disagree with the Catholic Church’s stance on gay marriage, and if you live in the UK, perhaps you would like to sign the Coalition For Equal Marriage’s petition to show your support.

Friday mystery object #137 answer

On Friday I gave you this mystery object to identify:

Unfortunately I was unable to respond to comments on Friday, as my laptop had to go in for repairs and my phone has reached the end of its useful life as an internet device after 4 years faithful service. For the answer this week I had to drag out my old laptop, which has meant 2 hours of twiddling thumbs as the machine started up and dealt with various updates…

In some ways it was a good thing that I wasn’t able to comment, since it would have ruined the fun from the outset. Jake was straight in there, wondering if it was really as easy as it looked – and it was. Rachel, Jack Ashby and Barbara Powell also plumped for the right answer, while several others came very close when they went for a greedy relative. This is in fact the skull of a juvenile  Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #136 answer

On Friday I gave you this skull to identify:

I think the oddly inflated and positioned auditory bullae make this look like Gary Oldman in his role as Dracula. Because of this characteristically odd feature the specimen was fairly easy to identify. Of course, that supposes that most people have seen the skull of one of these animals before…

Here is the skull in better detail (for future reference):

The front teeth were a good indication that it was a rodent (we’ve talked about that before) and with the big and upward pointing external auditory meatus (better known as ear-hole) it suggested a very big-eared rodent.

With a skull length of about 7cm the number of possible rodents decreased quite rapidly, as most are much too small to have such a big skull, so I wasn’t surprised when Barbara Powell and David Craven hinted that they had the answer. From then on I started getting cryptic answers about warm fur and cold faces as more of you worked out that this is the skull of a  Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #136

[N.B. The answer to the mystery object will be a little late this week, as I won’t have internet access – expect the answer on Tuesday!]

This week I have a mystery object that will probably prove very easy to identify, since it has quite a distinctive shape:

It looks a bit like Gary Oldman’s portrayal of Dracula to me, but do you know what species this skull is from?

As usual you can put your questions, comments and suggestions below. Good luck!

Friday mystery object #135 answer

On Friday I gave you this object to identify:

I thought it might prove quite tricky, yet several of you managed to work out what it was and which animal it came from.

Jake spotted that it was from a young animal – as you can see from the unfused ends of the bone. He also noticed that it was a bit of a strange shape, a bit like a tibia, but actually a radius.

Barbara Powell suggested that it belonged to an animal built for power rather than speed and henstridgesj suggested one such critter – the Aardvark. Although that wasn’t right, or even close in terms of evolutionary relationships, it was very close from the perspective of functional adaptations.

After that it was a short step to the same answer that I decided on when I had to identify this piece of bone. Barabara Powell, henstridgesj and Steven D. Garber, PhD all converged on the answer of  Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #135

This Friday I’ve decided to really challenge your identification skills with a single bone that I found in the Horniman’s collections.

There was no information of any kind with this specimen, although the material it shared a box with was acquired from the King’s College Comparative Zoology collection. That means that it could be from pretty much any animal on the planet. What do you think it is? (N.B. since it is tricky I’ve given you an image from every angle.)

As usual, you can put your questions, comments and suggestions below and I’ll do my best to respond during the day. Good luck (I think you may need it).

Friday mystery object #134 answer

On Friday I gave you a very nice specimen from the Horniman Museum to identify:

I chose this partly because it’s a great mount and partly because I needed to check the identification, which was out of date.

You all did a great job of breaking down the various options – and there were a few. Jake made the comment:

Is it dippy or a bit ruff ?

This I took as a question about whether the specimen was a Kangaroo Rat (of the genus Dipodomys) or a Rufous Rat-kangaroo (Aepyprymnus rufescens). There was another interpretation that fit with the dippy clue – the correct Family name, which is Dipodidae.

Barbara Powell and Jamie Revell were in the right area and henstridgesj suggested J.j. which was pretty much there, assuming he meant Jaculus jaculus. It is in fact the skeleton of the  Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #133 answer

Friday’s mystery object was meant to be a bit of a challenge:

Post-cranial bones can be tricky to identify, especially if you don’t have much comparative material available.

The first challenge was to work out which bits of bone are present – something that Rhea and Jake managed very well. This particular specimen is composed of a broken portion of right mandible (showing the coronoid process, condyloid process and angular process), the left ilium, and the first three cervical vertebrae (which include the axis and atlas bones).

Identifying the species was a bit more tricky using just these few bits of bone, but several of you managed to get there. Henstridgesj was the first to suggest  Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #132 answer

On Friday I gave you these objects to identify:

I expected you to work out what these came from pretty easily – and you proved me right. In fact, I think this was probably the easiest mystery object so far, given that everyone managed to get a correct identification of  Continue reading →

However you dress it up…

I know Christmas has been and gone, so this post is far from breaking news, but I’ve been meaning to write it ever since I saw this advertisement on a local bus stop:

Now although I’m an atheist, I really don’t have a problem with the advertisement for any reason beyond the utter banality of the message. It’s a bit like saying this:

For both there is an etymological root linking a supernatural figure to the name of a day – it’s very common, just think of other supernatural figures that lend their names to days, like Tiw, Wodin and Freyja. I wonder if we should also remember these deities on their appropriate days? That seems to be the logical implication of the Christian advert.

But then, what should be done about Easter? Maintaining the logic of the Christian advertising around Christmas, it would seem that we should remember that Easter is named for the pagan goddess Ēostre. This seems doubly reasonable since there is hardly any difference between the Christian celebration and the Pagan fertility festival, with all it’s rampant rabbits and eggy delights.

The fact is that by following the logic of the advertising we should either be utterly ignoring the etymological root of Christmas, as we do for Easter and Tuesday, or we should be acknowledging the etymological root for all days named after supernatural beings.

I’ve decided to make sure I remember that Christmas is about Christ, Easter is about Ēostre and Thursday is most definitely about Thor, which is presumably what constitutes hammer time:

Friday mystery object #131 answer

On Friday I showed you some specimens that I had to identify in the museum last week, and I asked if you had any idea what they might be:

Perhaps unsurprisingly, several of you did have a very good idea.

They look a bit bony, but they’re not bone. They look a bit toothy, but they’re not teeth. They look a scutey, but they’re not scutes. They are in fact from an animal that doesn’t have bones, teeth or scutes.

Denis Copilas, Matt king, henstridgesj, Barbara Powell and David all managed to spot that these are the hooks from a very large  Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #131

This week I have some mystery objects that I had to identify earlier this week. Any idea what these things might be?

I’m going to be in Buxton for the day, looking at a mermaid (as is my wont), so I may not be able to respond to comments as usual. That said, I will try, so put your suggestions, observations and questions below – I will respond eventually.

Good luck!

Friday mystery object #130 answer

On Friday I gave you this specimen to identify:

I thought that some of you might find it a bit tricky, since this is a shell from a group of animals that aren’t that familiar to most people.

Barbara Powell was the first to spot what this shell came from and her identification was supported by Dave Godfrey, Julie Doyle and henstridgesj. It’s a   Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #130

This week I have something from the Horniman’s collections that some of you will probably be able to identify straight away, whilst others may have a slightly harder time:

Any idea what it is?

Put your suggestions, comments and questions below and I’ll do my best to respond. Good luck!

Friday mystery object #129 answer

On Friday I gave you this object to identify:

This type of bone can prove tricky to identify, and we often have queries about them on Ask A Biologist. With a large example like this one there will often be a suspicion that it comes from a human. 

However, this is in fact the humerus of a bird – the large flange at the proximal end (the bit nearest the body) makes it hard to spot the rounded point where it articulates with the scapula, coracoid and furcula bones that make up the shoulder joint. The flange itself provides a large attachment area for the tendons and muscle needed to power and control flight.

Here are some images of a (much smaller) goose humerus that show the general structure of the bone more clearly:

Once you’ve recognised the mystery object as the humerus of a bird, the length of about 45cm (17.7 inches) immediately narrows down the species it could come from.

Jack Ashby was the first to recognise what this humerus belonged to and he found support from Rachel, Carlos, Julie Doyle and initially Barbara Powell (although she later opted for another possibility). It’s the humerus of an   Continue reading →