20 2 mins 10 yrs

The radical agenda to dismantle the essence of our society continues apace;

Reforms to allow same-sex marriage will see the words husband and wife removed from official forms, it was revealed last night. Tax and benefits guidance and immigration documents must be rewritten so they no longer assume a married couple is a man and a woman. And private companies will be told to overhaul paperwork and computer databases containing the words. Marriage certificates could even be affected by the Coalition proposals, with rules possibly axing terms such as bride and bridegroom.

This is how it works. The drive to establish the radical gay agenda DOES have consequences. Slowly but surely it will erase terms that we currently take for granted. It’s not just husband and wife that will be removed from the legal vocabulary but also possibly bridge and bridegroom. And this is equality?

No, it is something much more malign – a clear attempt to undermine some of the most basic tenets of our society. Liberals seem to have a cultural death wish and it is being indulged by the political class. Maybe someone should ask what happens when having slouched towards Gomorrah, we arrive?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

20 thoughts on “I KNEW THE DESIGNATED MARRIED PERSON WHEN THEY USED TO ROCK AND ROLL….

  1. The conservative contemplation of gay marriage is turning into give us this day our daily dread. Is marriage as it exists today in the UK the essence of its society? From the Prince of Wales on down heterosexual divorce in spite of the alleged cherished institution is almost as common as marriage itself.

  2. ” is turning into give us this day our daily dread”

    LOL

    But, mahons, you forget – the Prince of Wales will soon be head of the Anglican Church, an institution founded through heterosexual divorce.

  3. We are moving suspiciously close into the “The lady doth protest too much” territory.

  4. Seems a few more ought to doth protest.

    Quite plainly gay marriage has nothing to do with gays or equality. The campaign is simply yet another front in the kulturkampf against tradition, morals and conservative institutions.

    “And private companies will be told to overhaul paperwork and computer databases containing the words.”

    And private companies ought tell the impertinent State to sod off.

  5. The ” conservatives ” aren’t the ones causing the societal disruption here. The entire too little, and perhaps too late push has come from those who despise tradition and the shared inheritance of western Christian culture.

    It is a genuinely sad thing.

    Once you lose your culture, don’t expect that you’ll be able to get it back.

  6. Rewrite

    The ” conservatives ” aren’t the ones causing the societal disruption here. The push to preserve what’s left of tradition comes too little, and perhaps too late. The so called conservatives are reacting to an assault from those who despise tradition and the shared inheritance of western Christian culture. Yes, it’s correct to ” react ” to an attack on your society.

    This is a genuinely sad thing.

    Once you lose your culture, don’t expect that you’ll be able to get it back.

  7. I will cross out the words ‘partner’ on any official form and replace with ‘wife’ and I will do the same with any similar gender neutral word that is thought up. I have passed my Golden Wedding Anniversary with my wife and I can see no reason why I should be expected to accept another terminology. She was my wife, she is my wife and I can see no logical reason why she should not remain my wife in the future. Mz. Featherstone can take a running jump. She insults us all as does David Cameron.

  8. There is no need to change traditional wordings on any official forms. If same-sex civil marraige is brought in then the words husband and wife still remain relevent, husband referring to any man who is married and wife referring to any woman who is married.

  9. I have passed my Golden Wedding Anniversary

    Congratulations. What a testimony to the endurance of love. (this sounds like I am being flippant and trying to make a point. I am doing neither)

  10. Men and women can never be equal as they are different but, and this is important, they are complimentary in a way that two men or two women cannot ever be. Even if these Liberal ideas pass through Parliament some term to differentiate heterosexual marriage from homosexual marriage will appear and then what?

  11. Peter T,

    “Men and women … are complimentary in a way that two men or two women cannot ever be.”

    Nonsense. I hear gays and lesbians complimenting one another all the time 😉

  12. same-sex marriage

    As I understand it, “same sex marriage” will only take place in registry offices. The churches have their own marriage rites which will always exclude it “do you take this woman to be your wife, do you take this man to be your husband?” and nothing in the proposed law will compel any church to marry any same sex couple.

    What I don’t get is the attitude of the churches, and especially the Catholics. They don’t recognise registry office marriages anyway, so wtf should they care whether the couple is same sex or not?

  13. You’re right Peter, it’s none of their business. They should get their own house in order, and that’s putting it politely.

  14. I take it Peter/Petr that no Catholic will be compelled by law to recognise and treat a same sex marriage in the same way they would a marriage in the course of their social and business life?

  15. They most certainly will. But you’re young, you’ve plenty of time to get used to it! 🙂

  16. I take it Peter/Petr that no Catholic will be compelled by law to recognise and treat a same sex marriage in the same way they would a marriage in the course of their social and business life?

    Can you give a practical example of what you mean here?

Comments are closed.