‘Gay Marriage': what you should know

The Scottish Government has just announced that, even though they are ‘initially’ in favour of two men or two women legally being allowed to ‘marry’ each other, the people of Scotland should be consulted anyway. Which begs the question, why did they announce their preference before waiting to hear from the people they allegedly represent?

The consultation paper can be downloaded from here (pdf). It is quite lengthy and the actual questionnaire starts at page 35. The consultation period ends early December, but if you have an interest in preserving some vestige of decency in our society, please don’t leave it too late to get involved. This won’t just affect Scotland; it will end up spreading to the rest of the UK (like the smoking ban did). We all ought to know by now that these things are part of a global agenda.

These are the two basic discussion points raised by Nicola Sturgeon MSP, who is Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy,

…on the possibility of allowing religious ceremonies for civil partnerships and the possible introduction of same sex marriage.

We are assured that,

This Government believes in religious tolerance and the freedom to worship. We also believe in equality and diversity.

Sounds nice and cosy, doesn’t it; like everyone is catered for? The reality is that the two are sometimes incompatible and friction is created and people are made to do things against their will or face the consequences, so that, for example, if a B&B owner’s conscience doesn’t permit him to rent double beds to a couple of homosexuals, instead of those people simply acknowledging that others have different beliefs (isn’t diversity supposed to be a good thing?) and booking into alternative accommodation, they take the hump at being ‘offended’ and cause trouble.

And what exactly does it mean to ‘believe in diversity’? Obviously, it has to be an approved kind of diversity, as we have seen too many times already.

I haven’t read the whole document (yet), but here is a statement from Nicola Sturgeon which jumped out at me from the BBC’s article;

“However, we are aware that for religious reasons, some faith groups and celebrants may not want to solemnise same-sex marriages, and that is why we are making it clear that they should not be obliged to do so.”

An honest approach would have been to admit that many (not some) faith groups will not (not may not want to) solemnise these same-sex ‘marriages’.

But despite her insistence that they “should not be obliged to do so,” this question appears on the Consultation:

Question 14

Do you agree that religious bodies should not be required to solemnise same sex marriage?

In other words, mob rule may end up determining how groups and individuals are allowed to behave in matters of conscience. The logical conclusion is that this country will end up having a few state-registered churches (the ones that go along with the government) and all the others will be driven underground, just like in China.

That’s what will happen here if this agenda continues. In a sinister development, Tory MP (yes, Tory MP) Mike Weatherley has written to David Cameron and seems to be suggesting that churches that refuse to bless the union of man and man/woman and woman should forfeit the right to perform all marriages.

“Gay Rights” always was about changing the definition of marriage. Those early gay liberation militants knew this had to happen if their way of life was to have any chance of being considered equal to heterosexual unions. What is surprising is that so many people now support the obliteration of normality and destruction of society (destruction is inevitable if the basic building blocks – families – are weakened). That’s the power of an infiltrated media for you.

If same sex marriage goes ahead then schoolchildren will be subjected to even more propaganda from the likes of Stonewall, who are already encouraging youngsters to wear frocks to help them discover their ‘feminine side’.

How much worse are we going to let our society become just to allow homosexuals, a very small minority, to feel that their abnormal behaviour is normal?

That is all this is about, after all – but dressed up as some great crusade for equality.

That consultation paper lists the countries where same-sex marriage is already legal:

List of jurisdictions which have established same sex marriage

Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Iceland
Mexico (Mexico City only but recognised throughout Mexico)
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
United States (some states only)

Each of these countries has very serious problems due to their increasingly liberal ‘values’ and multiculturalism.

The warning is there. Some people will laugh, of course. Some people will call me names, of course. Some people will ignore the warnings from history, of course.

To these people, all I can say is, “Don’t say I didn’t warn you.”

Consider this. Can you think of any culture in any part of the world at any time pre-1990 which allowed two people of the same sex to get “married” and be legally recognised as such?

Were they all ‘homophobic’ or is there a very good reason for not accepting hedonistic, barren lifestyles as normal for the good of the tribe?

UPDATE 9.0PM – I had also intended to make this point – if same-sex “marriage” is approved, some people will be calling for civil partnerships to be extended to included heterosexual couples. Needless to say that this would weaken the institution of marriage, and therefore society, even further.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to ‘Gay Marriage': what you should know

  1. bjedwards says:

    Stewart Cowan wrote:
    “How much worse are we going to let our society become just to allow homosexuals, a very small minority, to feel that their abnormal behaviour is normal?”
     
    How much longer will society let you define gays as “abnormal” and engage in “abnormal behavior”? Not much longer. Those of us consistently for individual rights will continue to fight you on that.
     
    Stewar Cowan wrote:
    ““Gay Rights” always was about changing the definition of marriage. Those early gay liberation militants knew this had to happen if their way of life was to have any chance of being considered equal to heterosexual unions.”
     
    Strawman. (You DO love strawman arguments, Stewart.) It’s about individual rights, something you are against. As we’ve seen, none of you can logically argue against the right of gays to marry.
     
    Stewart wrote:
    “Each of these countries has very serious problems due to their increasingly liberal ‘values’ and multiculturalism.”
     
    Unsupported claim.
     
    Stewart wrote:
    “Consider this. Can you think of any culture in any part of the world at any time pre-1990 which allowed two people of the same sex to get “married” and be legally recognised as such?”
     
    I remember segregation very well in my own country, Stewart. We had a long history of slavery, too. You have no point, Stewart, just wild appeals to tradition.
     
    Stewart wrote:
    “Were they all ‘homophobic’ or is there a very good reason for not accepting hedonistic, barren lifestyles as normal for the good of the tribe?”
     
    Strawman. Mischaracterization. There’s no reason to violate the individual rights of people because you don’t like their “lifestyle.” 

    But you can learn a little about science and evolutionary biology:
     
    “HOW TO MAKE LOVE LIKE A CAVEMAN”

    Daniel Honan on September 3, 2011, 12:00 AM

    “What’s the Big Idea?

    “If asked to imagine what prehistoric human sex was like, according to psychologist Christopher Ryan, most of us would conjure “the hackneyed image of the caveman, dragging a dazed woman by her hair with one hand, a club in the other…” Ryan says this image is mistaken in every detail. A much more likely picture of how it went down in prehistoric times was this: a caveman would quietly sit in the corner and watch another caveman have sex with a woman, patiently waiting his turn.

    “Apparently, prehistoric women were extraordinarily promiscuous, and like our primate ancestors, women are hard-wired to behave like chimps in the bedroom. In his book, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origin of Modern Sexuality, Ryan offers a biological explanation for why we find monogamy so difficult today. A male is interested in sex with one woman up until the point of orgasm, at which point he will immediately lose interest, fall asleep, or perhaps wonder off to find more action.

    “In other words, human males are in important ways sexually incompatible with human females, who are capable of multiple orgasms. So what is the evolutionary advantage of this? Take monogamy out of the equation, and the evolutionary logic becomes more evident. A woman can have multiple sexual partners. This may increase her chances of reproducing, and she needs to try it a lot to be successful. Compared to other animals, humans have an incredibly low rate of conception, based on the number of sexual acts we partake in. And so it is well that sex is so much fun for humans, because if that were not the case, we wouldn’t have made it this far.

    “So just what does it mean to make love like a caveman? It means have a lot of sex, partaking in, as Ryan describes it, the “seven million years of primate promiscuity” that our ancestors so heartily embraced as a species. That’s a lot of sex.”

    “What’s the Significance?

    “According to Ryan, if we took an honest look at our dysfunctional sexual lives today, this is what we would find: we are all victims of a well-intentioned inquisition. American society has responded to this crisis by inventing a ‘marital-industrial complex’ of couples therapy, “pharmaceutical hard-ons,” sex advice columnists, and “creepy father-daughter purity cults.” Viagra breaks sales records every year. Pornography worldwide is a $100 billion business. Ryan says we spend all of this money to compensate for a fundamental disconnect we have with our nature. 

    “For instance, why is monogamy so difficult? According to Ryan, we are biologically programmed against it. It was not until the advent of agriculture that man developed a notion of private property, and had reason to feel jealous of a promiscuous mate. Culture invented monogamy, and with it marriage, cheating, and a sense of shame that surrounds our sexual selves. Ryan is anything but a home-wrecker. His book offers no prescriptions for curing our disconnect with nature. What he does recommend, however, is that we lose this sense of shame we have when we feel or act certain ways that contradict our culture, but which are in perfect harmony with our sexual nature.”

    http://bigthink.com/ideas/40029

  2. bjedwards says:

    Stewart’s update makes the same unsupported claim as before. He cannot demonstrate how marriage between freely choosing individuals is affected negatively in any way whatsoever by the right of gays to marry.

    All he has done is made a fallacious appeal to tradition. Again.

  3. Stewart Cowan says:

    BJ,

    I think my claims in that post have been proven historically correct time and again. Look at the short list of countries where same-sex “marriage” is legal and consider the economic turmoil they are in. I’m just surprised that Greece isn’t among them. Iceland has just managed to survive and Belgium won’t even be a country soon the way things are going there. Sweden & The Netherlands are paying the price of their societies’ problems brought on by changing their ways to accommodate Islam. Jews are now fleeing Malmo, for example.

    When a society is re-engineered, there have to be repercussions. It is cause and effect. Not sure how you can deny it.

  4. john Leon says:

    I do admire your tenacity, bjedwards, in that you seem to think the word marry is a non specific word applying to all sorts of human sexual partnerships and activities; it is not, it has a precise meaning, other words do not, that is the way language works and logical debate requires the skillful and correct use of language. I have no problems accepting homosexual persons, they are born into this world, I seriously doubt that their parents deliberately geneticaly engineered them to be so and so have every right to live peaceful lives, however this does not include the right to greatly peeve a very much larger number of the citizenry, which is what a very small number of activists are trying to do. I am straight and so in certain thought processes cannot think as a homosexual, however I am a male human being and can think in that sphere of shared existance, have you ever tried to think what the word marriage and its associated traditions might mean to a heterosexual person?

  5. David Cameron is expected to make a public statement committing himself to the re-definition of marriage in the near future:

    http://carvath.blogspot.com/2011/09/exclusive-david-cameron-to-re-define.html

  6. bjedwards says:

    John Leon, you have already demonstrated that you never bothered to look up the definition of marriage.

  7. bjedwards says:

    Stwart Cowan has again demonstrated that he cannot support his own claims in face of the evidence which refutes him.

    This is just one reason denialists earn the derision they get.

  8. bjedwards says:

    Richard Corvath wrote on his site:

    “The true definition of marriage is a lifelong exclusive union of one man and one woman. David Cameron intends to re-define marriage in order to accommodate homosexuals.”

    Virtually all definitions of marriage include gays, to wit:

    “marriage(mar·riage)”

    “Definition of MARRIAGE”

    “a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage.”

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

    There’s no point in fighting reality, Richard.

  9. English Viking says:

    BJ,

    If the above definition is correct, I suppose you’ll be able to name a few gays that are legally (not notionally) married then?

  10. john Leon says:

    bjedwards, your delusion only fools yourself.

  11. English Viking says:

    Richard,

    O/T,

    I’ve read the ‘angel’ thread on your ‘blog’.

    Dude, really, you need to calm down. You are going to upset the wrong people, and no amount of fantasising about being in the SAS will help you then.

    Really Richard, someone is going to get ticked off sooner or later.

    If half of what you say is true then it’s obvious GMP will do nothing to stop these people, and they won’t help you either.

    If I was you I’d remove the blog, get a job and slip quietly into obscurity.

  12. isitfoggy says:

    EV, he is going to get a job – Prime Minister!

  13. isitfoggy says:

    Sorry for the typo – should have read Prime Mentalist

  14. GMP don’t have the option of doing nothing. They can delay a little longer but they will have to act soon or else be forced into making a public statement of confession that the Chief Constable’s Office has lied. It’s common knowledge that the premises identified are unquestionably brothels, common knowledge that the brothelkeepers have been correctly identified, and brothelkeeping is clearly an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. GMP’s officially stated position is that they are not licensing any brothels and they are committed to enforcing the law. GMP either have to do their job soon or face the consequences.

  15. bjedwards says:

    John Leon,

    It must be nice to live a life unburdened by reality.

  16. john Leon says:

    bjedwards, reality is what you make it and yes my life is relatively unburdened, but I choose to live in a part of the world internationaly renowned for its wines and cuisine, its beautiful countryside, its modern clean infrastructure and its educated citizens, so perhaps you are correct that the reality of my life, even though I pay taxes is not at all depressed by the realities that surround you.

  17. bjedwards says:

    However you choose to hide from reality is meaningless, John Leon.

  18. LJ Rolfe says:

    bjedwards I agree entirely with you on this matter, Who is anyone to say that ‘Gay’ people should have any differant rights than those how are not? Surely if they love eachother, that is enough?

  19. Anne says:

    “Look at the short list of countries where same-sex “marriage” is legal and consider the economic turmoil they are in.”

    Correlation does not equal causation, you know. I’m betting there are other things those countries have in common that also didn’t cause economic turmoil. Maybe people drink milk in all those countries.

    Not to mention countries in economic turmoil that don’t have gay marriage, how do those places fit your agenda?

    Freedom and diversity-this does not mean you have the freedom to be hateful and discriminate. We get a lot of people here in America trying that very same refrain, I’m saddened to see it in the UK but we don’t have a corner on the hate market it seems.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>