A Catholic Bishop, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, has set the PC Brigade into overdrive by his suggestion that plans allowing homosexuals to be classed as 'married' was a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human
right", and would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world".
He has joined other church clergy, such as the Anglican Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, who in January insisted governments did not have the moral authority to 'redefine marriage'. Interestingly the
word 'Gay' was also defined differently, until the homosexual lobby
forced it into another usage ..... so the fact that 'Gay' people are
'Unhappy' about the Bishops comments strikes no one as faintly ludicrous.
In the interests of clarity, I should point out that the proposed change is not to religious marriages and is not to be imposed on religious groups. Its just a change to call what is now called 'Civil Partnership' to be classed as 'marriage'. Sadly for the Bishop, the Catholic churches moral standing has been much dissipated by cover ups associated with the child abuse scandals of the last decade, so he is hiding behind a very small moral fig-leaf when he starts arguing against 'gay marriages'.
My interest in this is that in opening up the debate like this, the Bishop has raised some interesting questions, not least of which is do the government have the right to redefine marriage without asking everyone? For several thousand years (in both pre and post Christian times), marriage has been defined pretty much as the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. No society before has ever permitted the definition to apply to same sex partners.
All the evidence shows that when governments start to tamper with the common rules that have bound societies together for millennia, then it has unforeseen consequences .... unmarried pregnancy was frowned upon before the law changes of the 1960's, and now we have 44.4 per cent of live births outside of marriage. We also have very high single parent rates (especially amongst teen girls) .... society is paying a very high price in terms of crime, civil disorder and a low level permanent degradation of values for that bit of social engineering.
Once the homosexual lobby could argue that it was them who were being discriminated against in the West, but increasingly its now the gay activist wing of the PC brigade who are practising legal discrimination and harassment, against anyone who stands against them. Its now the gay activist lobby who is usually the first to call the police as soon as anyone disagrees with them. How many people have lost their jobs after being dragged before a tribunal or court for "homophobia?
One final thought, there has been marked silence in all this anti religious (Christianity) rhetoric about the thoughts of the self claimed 'fastest growing religion' in the UK and West. You know the one, the one whose adherents believe that homosexuals should be hanged (and even have the tacit support of the UN). Being denied 'married status' would be the least of the 'Gay' communities worries if they had their way.
All those calling for the end of Christian churches influence in the UK and elsewhere, should be careful what they wish for, and what might replace Christianity as the moral authority in the vacuum of the West.
In the interests of clarity, I should point out that the proposed change is not to religious marriages and is not to be imposed on religious groups. Its just a change to call what is now called 'Civil Partnership' to be classed as 'marriage'. Sadly for the Bishop, the Catholic churches moral standing has been much dissipated by cover ups associated with the child abuse scandals of the last decade, so he is hiding behind a very small moral fig-leaf when he starts arguing against 'gay marriages'.
My interest in this is that in opening up the debate like this, the Bishop has raised some interesting questions, not least of which is do the government have the right to redefine marriage without asking everyone? For several thousand years (in both pre and post Christian times), marriage has been defined pretty much as the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. No society before has ever permitted the definition to apply to same sex partners.
All the evidence shows that when governments start to tamper with the common rules that have bound societies together for millennia, then it has unforeseen consequences .... unmarried pregnancy was frowned upon before the law changes of the 1960's, and now we have 44.4 per cent of live births outside of marriage. We also have very high single parent rates (especially amongst teen girls) .... society is paying a very high price in terms of crime, civil disorder and a low level permanent degradation of values for that bit of social engineering.
Once the homosexual lobby could argue that it was them who were being discriminated against in the West, but increasingly its now the gay activist wing of the PC brigade who are practising legal discrimination and harassment, against anyone who stands against them. Its now the gay activist lobby who is usually the first to call the police as soon as anyone disagrees with them. How many people have lost their jobs after being dragged before a tribunal or court for "homophobia?
 |
| Gays In The West Fare Far Better Than Middle East - Gay Marriage Definitely Not An Option. |
One final thought, there has been marked silence in all this anti religious (Christianity) rhetoric about the thoughts of the self claimed 'fastest growing religion' in the UK and West. You know the one, the one whose adherents believe that homosexuals should be hanged (and even have the tacit support of the UN). Being denied 'married status' would be the least of the 'Gay' communities worries if they had their way.
All those calling for the end of Christian churches influence in the UK and elsewhere, should be careful what they wish for, and what might replace Christianity as the moral authority in the vacuum of the West.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are welcomed, or even just thanks if you enjoyed the post. But please make any comment relevant to the post it appears under. Off topic comments will be blocked or removed.
Moderation is on for older posts to stop spamming and comments that are off topic or inappropriate from being posted .... comments are reviewed within 48 hours. I don't block normal comments that are on topic and not inappropriate. Vexatious comments that may cause upset to other commentators, or that are attempting to espouse a particular wider political view, are reviewed before acceptance. But a certain amount of debate around a post topic is accepted, as long as it remains generally on topic and is not an attempt to become sounding board for some other cause.
Final decision on all comments is held by the blog author and is final.
Comments are always monitored for bad or abusive language, and or illegal statements i.e. overtly racist or sexist content. Spam is not tolerated and is removed.
Commentaires ne sont surveillés que pour le mauvais ou abusif langue ou déclarations illégales ie contenu ouvertement raciste ou sexiste. Spam ne est pas toléré et est éliminé.