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:
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
Mexico (Mexico City only but recognised throughout Mexico)
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.