28 2 mins 10 yrs

I was supposed to doing the Nolan TV show tomorrow night but looks like it will now be next week before I am inflicted upon an unsuspecting public! This is a topic that will be debated tomorrow night though… …

A call for same-sex couples to be given the right to marry in Northern Ireland has been defeated in the Stormont Assembly. The vast majority of unionist members voted against the motion, which was jointly tabled by Sinn Fein and the Green Party. If it had passed, the proposal would not have prompted a change in the law but would have ramped up pressure on the power-sharing administration to examine the issue.

Isn’t it odd? Basically UNIONISTS voted en masse against this further advance of the gay agenda whilst NATIONALISTS voted in favour of it! I oppose it on LIBERTY grounds, as you know. If it DID become “a right” then it would soon become a legal insistence and religious bodies – Protestant and Catholic, Hindu and…erm..Muslim….could face legal attack if they do not contort their principles and accept what a tiny gay minority demand. I still insist that gay marriage IS an oxymoron and one further slouch towards Gomorrah however. And I still have the right to maintain that view.

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

28 thoughts on “OXYMORON VOTED OUT….

  1. If it DID become “a right” then it would soon become a legal insistence and religious bodies – Protestant and Catholic, Hindu and…erm..Muslim….could face legal attack if they do not contort their principles and accept what a tiny gay minority demand.

    Nonsense.
    Divorced people can remarry but the state does not force the Catholic Church to perform marriages for divorced people.
    Protestants can get married but the state does not force the Catholic Church to perform marriage ceremonies for Protestants.
    If same sex couples are allowed to marry the state will not force the Catholic Church to perform marriages for same sex couples.

  2. Of course if David really was in favour of the LIBERTY of religous organisations he would be campaigning to have the current law which bans any religous ceremonies for civil partnerships or religous marraiges to be overturned. It is the current state of the law which dictates to churches NOT the proposed introduction of same sex civil marraige.

  3. Colm

    I think though that there is something about when something is considered a right and who can “deny” it.

    I found the stuff about the RC adoption services not having the right to exclude homosexual couples, rather disturbing.

    I consider some elements of “equality legislation” anti liberty. I think, in the main, non state organisation including hotels etc, should be free to discriminate as the wish. The anti (unfair) discrimination legislation should be focused on the public sector (and monopolies).

    I don’t think that there is any intention on the part of those lobbying for this change but there may be nintended consequences.

  4. Aileen

    But this is nothing to do with equality legislation. After all, equality legislation is already in place but no court or jurisdiction has ordered any government to amend the marraiges act to allow same sex marraiges. If the legislation clearly states that same sex couples are entitled to marraige licences from the state and that religous organisations are free to make their own choices whether to offer marraige ceremonies then that should satisfy everyone and ensures no coercion against anyone. the RIGHT is to have a legally recognised marraige, not a religous ceremony. It is a complete red herring to claim that churches will be forced to hold same sex weddings. There are no examples anywhere on earth where legal civil marraige has resulted in religous organisations being forced to hold the ceremonies. It is a scare story.

  5. Colm

    I think it unlikely that churches will be forced into performing same sex “marriages”. However I would have thought it impossible that RC adoption agencies would be in the position that they were in.

    Legislation can be challanged even if it does specify that churches don’t have to conduct the ceremonies.

    I’m not saying that that is a justification for opposing it. Just saying that there can be unintended consequences.

  6. In the states several Christian denominations regularly perform same-sex marriages, while federal and most state governments refuse to recognize same sex civil unions.

    Civil rights for gay couples are up for votes in Maine, Washington State, Minnesota and Maryland this November. The polls in Maine show over 50 percent support for marriage equality, but not far ahead enough for comfort; in Minnesota, it’s tied right now. In Maryland, the polls show a 51 – 38 percent edge for marriage equality. In Washington State, it’s 56-38 percent in favor. In Minnesota, where the Catholic hierarchy are waging a very strong campaign against marriage equality, the polls are tied.

    It’s only a matter of time before this issue is considered passe. Young people overwhelming accept gay equality and the aging demographic who overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage will soon die out.

  7. Aileen

    Strictly speaking RC adoption agencies were not forced to arrange same sex adoptions, they were however denied local authority contracts to run adoptions because they would not consider same sex couples. RC agencies could have continued to operare organising private voluntary adoptions but it was not financially feasible for them to do so.

  8. Colm

    Thanks for that. I did wonder if there was something like that at the back of it but I don’t remember anyone clearing it up for me.

    I can stop being annoyed about it. 🙂

  9. Aileen – I trust you enough to know your position on RC adoption agencies is made in good faith and that most people working for such organizations are doing good work, and work others may not do.

    However, let us ask are children are at much greater risk from harm from loving homosexual couples who seek to adopt and provide a home for the unwanted, or by so many members of my Church’s clergy who have on an international level failed children on a scale that makes the heart break?

  10. Mahons

    In that respect there is, I suppose, an irony in the RC church defending a position that it would say is in the interests of potentially our most vulnerable children. Although individuals can defend their stance personnally.

    My personnal position on gay adoption is, all other things being equal and in an ideal world (allowing for an ideal world where a child isn’t being brought up by its natural loving parents), a child is better off having close interaction on a daily basis with an adults of both genders.

    However all other things are rarely equal and we are not in an ideal world. A child is better off with a loving gay couple than staying on in care (unless he has particular needs that love alone can’t accommodate).

    However I think that any non-state entity should be free to discriminate however it wants. There need to be checks so that children are not handed over to just any hetrosexual couple and there should be some contingency if no “acceptable” couple can be found, so that the children are not prevented from beng adopted.

  11. Aileen – I suppose I disagree that a non-state entity should be able to discriminate when the issue is not their beliefs, but rather their practices (and certainly not when they might be funded in part by state entities).

  12. Mahons

    I would designate any entity funded by state money as state entity for the purpose of deciding who should be free to discriminate for whatever reason it wants.

    However I think, for instance B&Bs should be free to refuse to accommodate any group it wants to, whether it is gays, blacks, whites or even just curly haired Ulsterwomen with a fondness for crispy bacon sandwiches!
    Of course if they took my booking and did not make their policy clear and I turn up, I should be able to sue them till the pips squeaked!

    There are some occasions when the state has a duty to discriminate. It is not discrimination that is the problem, but unfairness 😉

  13. Aileen – I don’t think they have the right to pick which laws they will obey. In your B & B example, they should have no right to opt out of fire code, sanitary rules (both in housing and food service) etc.

  14. Mahons

    My point is that I disagree with that law.

    I agree with the laws that deal with those other matters . Well to a degree. I think I would prefer that they were free to be rubbish in these areas too but that the local council would display a big billboard outside saying “the food here is shite, the chef picks his nose and it is only a matter of time before some gets electrocuted in the loo!” This is only for dangers that can be easily contained within the premises. For example, they may need to follow fire safety codes because a fire there might spread. Oh and no children would be allowed in.

  15. Aileen

    But they can discriminate all they want perfectly legally if they make their B&B a private invitation only establishment. They could build up a client base and use a mailing list or ‘word of mouth’ requests. The law only kicks in when you publicly advertise.

  16. Colm

    I’m not convinced that that makes it ok. I think that it’s an area where people should have the right to be wrong.

    Even if I know I wouldn’t like to have to witness the wrong – if that makes sense.

  17. Well successive governments and I think most people have agreed that it’s better for society all round not to have the ‘No Blacks, No Jews, No Gays etc.. openly and legally displayed any more on job adverts or services in public.

  18. Aileen,

    ” I think I would prefer that they were free to be rubbish in these areas too but that the local council would display a big billboard outside saying “the food here is shite, the chef picks his nose and it is only a matter of time before some gets electrocuted in the loo!” This is only for dangers that can be easily contained within the premises. For example, they may need to follow fire safety codes because a fire there might spread. Oh and no children would be allowed in”

    So why wouldn’t the same principle apply to same sex adoption?

    If people can’t drag children into a fire hazard then why should anyone be allowed to drag them into a ‘you won’t get adopted and will wind up in care’ hazard – i.e. a situation where perfectly suitable adoptive parents might be turned away because of some other person’s beliefs?

    (Some other random person as well, not even related to the child. It’s even debatable that the biological parents should have such a veto on an adoptive placement, as they’ve by definition relinquished parental rights in giving up for adoption in the first place. If their desires can be met, great, but that should be a secondary consideration compared to the child’s chances of being adopted at all.)

  19. Frank

    I dealt with the specific point of not leaving a child unplaced at 2:15 – last sentence.

    It may not be crystal clear but that is very specifically what I was addressing and that if that agency cannot find a home for the child that there would be contingency. I don’t think that agency should be forced to place the child with a couple not “acceptable” to them but if they can’t find one that is, (within a reasonable timeframe), someone/thing else gets the chance.

Comments are closed.