13 2 mins 11 yrs

Great to see that David Cameron is living up to his sopping wet liberal credentials;

The coalition is to push ahead with plans for gay marriage following the personal intervention of David Cameron. Liberal Democrat Lynne Featherstone will today unveil plans to legislate to bring in gay marriage before 2015. The Equalities Minister will also announce that Britain should be a ‘world leader for gay rights’.

Essentially, this is about allowing gays who undergo a civil ceremony to be able to state that they are legally married. The announcement has been timed to coincide with the start of the Liberal Democrat conference, so there is politiking involved as well. It’s ironic to see a Conservative Leader ramming through a piece of legislation which by any definition is far from Conservative. The moral decay that lies at the heart of the UK is encapsulated in this decision, this grovelling to the militant gay agenda. The institution of marriage is between one man and one woman but our leaders know better and realise that they will get favourable media coverage by pretending that gay marriage exists. Here’s the summary;

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

13 thoughts on “WEDDING BELLS…

  1. I don’t agree that this is an issue of morality but I do think it is right that marraige should apply only to the union of a man and woman, husband and wife. It is right and proper and same sex couples can be protected and recognised legally through civil partnerships, but their unions are not marraiges.

  2. Assholes of a feather, fluck together. (no misspelling there, but a lot of sarcasm).

    I have no problem with straights, gays or whatever having sex. That’s a simple biological act. Hell, how about sticking your willie into an Oak tree knot-hole? Not a problem. Well, except if you’re competing with a pileated woodpecker, or even worse a rabid, famished squirrel.

    However, you’d have as much luck producing a progeny acorn as a homosexual couple would producing a progeny haemmorhoid.

    So basically, if you can’t have a civil partnership with the auld Oak tree you can’t have one with auld gnarly Arthur.

  3. So how are we going to refer to a man who marries a woman in the future? It happens quite a lot you know and it cannot be viewed as the same as a man who marries a man or a woman who marries a woman. Such a union is completely different and easily recognisable and so, no doubt, it will gain a description or title which recognises the difference.

  4. The liturgy of the Church of England sets out the requirements for the state of matrimony thus :
    ” Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.

    First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
    Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.
    Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

    I require and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgement, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, that if either of you know any impediment, why ye may not be lawfully joined together in Matrimony, ye do now confess it. For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God’s Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful.”

    When man/man or woman/woman unions can meet these criteria then they can call it marriage . It would appear that the Lib/Con government and gays think themselves above the Law of God .

  5. It would appear that the Lib/Con government and gays think themselves above the Law of God
    That is because they are.

    …but their unions are not marraiges.
    Why not?

  6. Geoff

    Only because of the gender differences. A marraige is a husband and wife. Nothing to do with morality or a belief that heterosexual unions are superior, just a technical albeit pedantic point as far as I am concerned.

  7. But surely that is just a semantic argument? We chose to define it so, we can change the definition.

    I don’t understand why people who are married are threatened if same sex couples get married. Unless your own union is somewhat precarious, how does what other people do have any impact or your own marriage. I have never understood this argument.

  8. Geoff

    I agree that the hostility to same sex marraige is unjustified, and it stems more from a dislike of gay people and gay partnerships rather than any principle of ‘protecting’ marraige, and I don’t actually dissaprove morally of the concept, I just have a view that marraige doesn’t need to be redifined, let it stay what it has always been – the creation of a Husband and wife union – why should same sex couples feel the need to call their unions the same thing. Why not let civil unions be the unique definition for same sex couplings, and gays can create a different ethos and culture and tradition around them, rather than just insist on copying and joing in with the heterosexual equivalent.

  9. The reason is that if you have different terms then you will have different statuses. You are saying the two are not equivalent. Otherwise you are proposing the equal but separate argument. And we know how tht ended. There is no justification for the difference if you accept the principle of equality.

    I agree that most opposition to gay marriage is based on prejudice.

    The sister site to this one has a particularly unpleasant thread on the subject.

Comments are closed.