The BBC posed a question recently ' Is Gay marriage an election issue'?
I think yes.
I suspect that returning to this topic will unleash the ignorant comments I have seen in the past but this needs to be said.
Why do I think yes?
Firstly, I believe that some voters, who otherwise are indifferent, will wonder just what is going on. When Britain is in the depths of recession and economic gloom and, while there is a realisation that 'so called' austerity cuts need to be made, folks will wonder why the people, who they have elected, choose this moment to spend their time, not addressing the 'bread and butter' issues that affect the man in the street, but instead pander to a vocal minority.
Secondly, voters will ask, as I have done, why do homosexuals feel that they need to have their unions called marriage? People know and, like me, reckon that the 2004 Civil Union act, which afforded homosexual partners equal rights on a whole range of issues. So why the need for further legislation? OK, right-on pandering might be a reason but really?
I believe voters will see through the government's meaningless promises that 'no religious organisation will be compelled to offer marriage to homosexuals on religious sites'. Everyone knows that this is rubbish and that before the ink is dry on the legislation, the homosexual advocates, for whom no amount of progress is ever enough (until perhaps homosexuals are in the ascendancy and heterosexuals are a down-trodden minority), will be pushing for marriages to take place in churches and claiming all sorts of 'human rights abuses' when they are denied. We have seen this all before.
Christians certainly need only look back to the Abortion Act of 1967. When this was passed the impetus was to close down 'back-street' abortionists and care for the people who would receive abortions. These women were to be rape victims, women with social or mental issues etc. We were assured that there would be no 'abortion free for all'. We know the truth to the lies peddled by the politicians of that time (led by the bill's author Lord David Steele (of the Lib Dems parish) and can see these in the ever soaring number of abortions being performed in the UK
I actually think that this proposed legislation and the phony consultation that is being conducted ('we are consulting about the legislation but we will pay no attention to any comments that we receive!') may have a negative effect or backlash against homosexuals. Instead of just saying 'enough is enough' people might just say ' this shows we have already gone too far' - something similar to what is happening in people's response to the EU
Please feel free to comment but please try to answer the question 'What do homosexuals achieve by calling their commitment to each other a marriage rather than a civil union?'
I think yes.
I suspect that returning to this topic will unleash the ignorant comments I have seen in the past but this needs to be said.
Why do I think yes?
Firstly, I believe that some voters, who otherwise are indifferent, will wonder just what is going on. When Britain is in the depths of recession and economic gloom and, while there is a realisation that 'so called' austerity cuts need to be made, folks will wonder why the people, who they have elected, choose this moment to spend their time, not addressing the 'bread and butter' issues that affect the man in the street, but instead pander to a vocal minority.
Secondly, voters will ask, as I have done, why do homosexuals feel that they need to have their unions called marriage? People know and, like me, reckon that the 2004 Civil Union act, which afforded homosexual partners equal rights on a whole range of issues. So why the need for further legislation? OK, right-on pandering might be a reason but really?
I believe voters will see through the government's meaningless promises that 'no religious organisation will be compelled to offer marriage to homosexuals on religious sites'. Everyone knows that this is rubbish and that before the ink is dry on the legislation, the homosexual advocates, for whom no amount of progress is ever enough (until perhaps homosexuals are in the ascendancy and heterosexuals are a down-trodden minority), will be pushing for marriages to take place in churches and claiming all sorts of 'human rights abuses' when they are denied. We have seen this all before.
Christians certainly need only look back to the Abortion Act of 1967. When this was passed the impetus was to close down 'back-street' abortionists and care for the people who would receive abortions. These women were to be rape victims, women with social or mental issues etc. We were assured that there would be no 'abortion free for all'. We know the truth to the lies peddled by the politicians of that time (led by the bill's author Lord David Steele (of the Lib Dems parish) and can see these in the ever soaring number of abortions being performed in the UK
I actually think that this proposed legislation and the phony consultation that is being conducted ('we are consulting about the legislation but we will pay no attention to any comments that we receive!') may have a negative effect or backlash against homosexuals. Instead of just saying 'enough is enough' people might just say ' this shows we have already gone too far' - something similar to what is happening in people's response to the EU
Please feel free to comment but please try to answer the question 'What do homosexuals achieve by calling their commitment to each other a marriage rather than a civil union?'
I can't speak on behalf of the LGBT society, but I can offer some empathy. I believe one of the main reasons is that civil partnerships and marriage co-existing creates a sense of separatism that should be avoided. When "marriage" is the joining of a man and woman in matrimony, why can the same be offered but only as a civil partnership. It's a stride towards demonstrating that LGBT people are not so different at the end of the day. Their simple difference to non-LGBT society is their relationship status, nothing more or less.
ReplyDeleteThat sounds like a fair point but I think for most people, marriage is, and always will be, about a man and a woman. I actually supported the Civil Union act as it removed discrimination against a certain group in society. I think though that that is where my support ends. Homosexual 'marriage' is a step too far.
ReplyDeleteI also have a 'beef' with the UK Government in that they are spending time on this and on Lords reform, when their principal focus should be on the economy.
On how to get it performing, how to get the public sector to the 'right size' so that it provides a safety net for those in need but doesn't encourage the work-shy.
That they are missing the opportunity to perform root and branch reform of GB's education and health systems and instead pander to special interest groups and cower before the court of the media.
That they continue so in thrall to big business and the banks that they allow small and medium sized businesses to be over-burdened with costly legislation that only serves to stifle innovation and entrepreneurship.
That they 'talk the talk' about Europe but don't 'walk the walk'