64 2 mins 9 yrs

It’s the spirit of the age…..two lead news stories today.

Plans to legalise same-sex marriage in England and Wales return to the Commons later today, amid continuing opposition from some Conservative activists and MPs. The Marriage Bill was approved by a 225-vote majority when it was last debated by MPs in February, but nearly half of all Tories voted against it.

And…..

The issue of gay ministers will top the agenda at the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly, four years after the first openly homosexual minister was appointed by the Kirk.

It strikes me that this small group of homosexual activists behind the “gay marriage” meme must be feeling very content today as they dominate the news agenda. Gay Marriage is this year’s model and it will not be stopped. The same politicians who for decades have dismissed traditional marriage as no big deal, and who took away every tax break afforded a married couple, now fall over themselves to demand gay marriage. Those churches who once insisted that marriage was one man and one woman, now queue up to change the formula of hundreds if not thousands of years.

In the final analysis my view is that what we are witnessing the radical reinterpretation of marriage to suit a secular elite. Once “gay marriage” is made law. polygamy is next up for legalisation. Some gay marriage supporters have already said this to me. And after polygamy is made legal in the UK (something muslims will appreciate, although don’t be expecting a gay wedding down your local Mosque any day soon) what then? The new principle is that marriage can mean whatever you want it to mean. Politicians and churches conspire around this radicalisation and dress it up in the hollow shroud of modernity. it’s not, it’s degeneracy.

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

64 thoughts on “WHAT A GAY DAY…

  1. ” Once “gay marriage” is made law. polygamy is next up for legalisation. Some gay marriage supporters have already said this to me. And after polygamy is made legal in the UK (something muslims will appreciate, although don’t be expecting a gay wedding down your local Mosque any day soon) what then?”

    Some might call it “setting a sprat to catch a mackerel”.

    It is very curious that extremist elements within Islam would, given the chance, come down on homosexuals like a ton of bricks. You only have to consult Shari’a law and the actual practices in some Muslim countries to see that homosexuality is to say the least “frowned upon”.
    Yet from the Gay lobbyists seemingly not a peep. No angry rallies of solidarity with Muslim Gay and Lesbian groups abroad, no questions raised in the House. Nada.
    All the approbrium is heaped on the Christian churches for being judgmental, un-loving, intolerant etc.
    “The Christian Church must change! Become more pink and fluffy, more accepting of………. everything!!”

    But as for Islam’s stern pronouncements on the issue; not a word.

    A sprat to catch a mackerel indeed.

    So what might be going on behind the scenes? Do we think that the Muslims that wish to change us from within have given up and gone away, or are they trying a different tack?

  2. Agit – any possibility that you’ll be attending a gay ‘marriage’ at your local synagogue? As I recall, the views of the Chosen Ones towards homosexuality are somewhat of the Old Testament.

    The next target once gay ‘marriage’ becomes law is the Church and the Church shall become obliged to permit gay ‘marriage’ entirely contrary to Scripture. In the same way as gay activists destroyed the successful participation of the Church in adoption , the Church will be obliged to cease to conduct weddings.

  3. Colm – it is extrapolation from current trajectory, and it certainly is happening. The Church of Scotland now has openly gay ministers who are quite prepared to conduct a gay ‘marriage’ ceremony in a Church building, regardless of the views of the congregation. The key pieces are in place, and the next move is obvious.

  4. Allan,
    I wouldn’t attend a Gay wedding in a Church of Scotland, never mind a synagogue.
    I just can’t condone it, it is wrong.
    Nothing against homosexuals, they are sinners just like me; but as David says above in passing this Bill our government will not only be opening the floodgates to all forms of marriage, they will be slapping the faces of over half a million people who took the trouble to sign a petition REJECTING these proposals.
    Even my own MP cannot provide evidence that this has the “overwhelming support” of the public, yet she confidently asserts it is so.

  5. The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

  6. Phantom, if modern civilisation can be brought down just by two people getting married, it well deserves to fall.

    This paranoia is all too silly. Life will continue just as before; only now there will be more happily married people.

    Other people will of course be anything but happy; but sooner or later their numbers will decrease and disappaar.

  7. I love how gays were once supported by the Left in their quest to be accepted just how they are, to be “different but equal”. Yet all of a sudden the Left insists that gays must have the oppressive, outmoded and old fashioned trappings of heterosexual male dominance which the Left has long derided.

    How very suburban and bourgeois the Left has become.

  8. Wrong. They supported choice. Many gay people don’t wish to get married, as I do not as a straight person. Equality means that they can get married, or not, as they wish.

    In any case, you can bang on about the left on a blog few read all you like.. this is happening. Tough shit!

  9. // Yet all of a sudden the Left insists that gays //

    We could also note how protective of state institutions Libertarians have become.

    Here we have a ritual that is totally empty and meaningless because the state officiates suddenly become a foundation of western civilisation to be defended at all costs.

    All that gays are demanding after all is the right to state certification of their union.

  10. There is no viable political movement towards polygamy, despite how many gay marriage supporters have oddly confided the movement’s secret intentions to Mr. Vance.

    As for stories about gay marriage dominating discussions, clearly no activist pressure is needed as many of the writers of ATW have a compulsion in writing about the topic.

  11. Amnesia’s as chronic as usual around here.

    Noel –

    Gays can already have state certification of their union, though why anyone would want some dreary bureaucrat in a cheap suit intruding on their relationship is baffling. What a sad ambition, to have the state “certify” your relationship.

    I explained the other day that marriage is a private matter, and that the state has no business regulating it. There are no libertarians defending state institutions.

  12. There is no viable political movement towards polygamy

    Yet.

    There was no viable movement to this thing a very short time ago. Nobody here heard of the concept 15 years or so ago.

  13. Phantom – There has been a viable gay rights movement since the late 1960’s. In addition polygamy is simply a false argument of a slipperly slope that doesn’t exist. Objections to polygamy deal not with the genders of the couple but the numbers of marriages permitted.

  14. Chris Gaskin said that next people will want marry animals. That’s the level of wit we’re dealing with on this issue.

    Equality is coming, folks. Suck it up.

  15. Petr – I am afraid that some of the opposition here is afraid your last line will be required of them if this goes through.

  16. Polygamy has a history going back centuries, and there are a surprising number of people in the US who’ve been quietly practicing it all along. In Utah, in nearby states by Mormons, in other places by Africans and/or Muslims. There are ” polygamy rights ” people who are active now – look it up.

    Saying that the slippery slope argument does not exist does not mean that it does not exist.

  17. Phantom – You no doubt will be able to point to state legislatures poised to pass laws permitting polygamy, imminent federal legislation in favor of it and polls of voters in support of it. Or perhaps you will not be able to do so.

    Polygamy is not of course any more likely upon passage of equal marriage rights for gays than it is likely now.

  18. I did not say that it was going to happen tomorrow morning, mahons.

    But you knew that.

  19. I explained the other day that marriage is a private matter

    You might wish that it is a private matter. You might think that it would be better if it was simply a private matter. But that doesn’t make it so.

  20. It is inherently a social matter involving the broader society, for many reasons.

  21. If I may, Mahons..

    ” clearly no activist pressure is needed as many of the writers of ATW have a compulsion concern in writing about the topic.”

    You seem to imply that people write about this because they are either homophobic or they are afraid that secretly they have homosexual tendencies.
    (I am very fond of our mailman 🙂 )
    But it is what this will do to families and parents and society as much as anything else. Sooner or later the naming of mother and father will come under fire for being “discriminatory ” against same sex parents, children will be discriminating against other children, and there will be more lawsuits.
    You’ll probably do well out of it, but that’s small comfort to us ordinary mortals.. 😉

  22. I think the slippery slope arguments against anything are generally the weakest argument against anything.

    My opposition such as it is to “gay marriage” is that it is a contradiction in terms. I think gay couples should have the same basic rights under the law and I think they have. If civil partnerships don’t deliver it all then their terms should be amended until they do. Women should have the same basic rights under the law but that doesn’t mean we are denied a rights or equality if we can’t describe ourselves as men.

    So getting back to the equality before the law which civil partnerships were intended to provide, there is a move to allow for legal recognition of polygamous relationships. They will cite civil partnerships. That would not have been a reasonable argument against civil partnerships, unless you consider it a reasonable argument not to have any relationships legally recognised, including marriage. Conventional marriage is the start of the slope.

    If something is right the a slippery slope is an argument for applying a brake to prevent that further slide not for not delivering the right thing itself. If something is wrong then why it is wrong in itself should be the argument against it.

  23. Phantom – I certainly know that arguments against gay marriage have been so routed that the available arguments are as unlikely as they are unconvincing.

    Oddly enough I strongly suspect that it had been such a great wedge issue for Republicans here in the US in years past that the continued overemphasis on it by those opposed to gay marriage convinced the general public that the opposition was without merit, far more than any advocacy of gay rights groups was able to achieve on its own.

  24. It is an ugly step away from the traditional norms of civilization. Do not assume that it will be the only step.

  25. Norms of civilisation? Marriage and the nuclear family are actually pretty recent arrivals in the span of human history.

  26. Aileen – damn it I specifically used a coarse joke above thinking that at least Aileen has been away and wouldn’t see it and think less of me so I was free to make a juvenile comment. Good to see you around even if I am exposed as Colm-like.

    The civil partnership option is an option if we first accept that one group of people deserves a different status under the law than another. No matter how close a civil partnership may be in practice, it still identifies one group as being second class citizens. I grant you that it is a far fairer compromise than nothing at all, but when one is trying to achieve equal rights, a facsimile isn’t satisfactory.

  27. Agit8ed- Are you of the opinion that the authors of posts about mincing queers and what a gay day are not to some degree homophobic? I don’t mean they wish gay people harm, but rather that they find gay people unworthy of equal rights under the law.

    Is it that they merely wish to defend marriage? If memory serves those opposed here to gay marriage tend to be opposed to gay people adopting, serving in the armed forces, and having equal rights as to employment, lodging etc. I suggest a pattern might be visible to a conscious reader.

    I have no financial interest in supporting gay marriage.

  28. “Marriage and the nuclear family are actually pretty recent arrivals on the scene”
    Most ordinary people in most cultures have had the one spouse and kids. Rich people or nobility had more than one wife, but even Henry the Eighth didn’t have more than one “on the go” at any one time. He got shot of the current model before marrying the latest hot little number.
    Then of course the Je (those whom we daren’t name) were only supposed to have one spouse. The Kings of Israel were copying the kingdoms round about them.
    And anyway really, if the idea of having sex with someone different every night appeals, then why not use prostitutes?
    It’s a lot less hassle. 😉

  29. Mahons

    Apparently many years ago there was a debate at some local council about censorship of a film that included oral sex (not sure how explicit) and one councillor was quoted in the local paper as “we all know oral sex goes on but we don’t need it ramming down our throats!” Was reported as an innocent remark but Ye have ta wonder !

    Think it was the same book I read of another debate about a film that one female councillor deemed “erotic but tasteful”. In the local paper there was a photo of this respectable lady – Mary Whitehouse specs and all, with. Mrs Elsie Simmons “erotic but tasteful”. Some woman would kill for that advertising!

    Just on the subject of paper bloopers, there was also the apology printed in a local paper along the lines of “Correction. – Mr XXXXX XXXXXX of XXXXXXXXX was convicted of burgary and not buggery as was reported in last week’s edition. We would like to apologise for any embarrassment caused”. Imagine having to get a paper to clarify that you are a burglar 🙂

    Re second class thing. I don’t think marriage should be a legal thing at all. Civil partnerships should be the legal thing for all and marriage can be the religious/ social thing.

  30. “Agit8ed- Are you of the opinion that the authors of posts about mincing queers and what a gay day are not to some degree homophobic? ”

    Mahons, what you get up to in the privacy of your own home is between you and your Priest….

    I personally do not like such language, I actually find it unpleasant. But I don’t think it necessarily means they are homophobic. It may just be the reaction to seeing something out of the ordinary. I think when I was in the Merchant Navy before I became a Christian, I would have used similar language.

    “I have no financial interest in supporting gay marriage.”

    You may get business from defending one side or the other though…

  31. but rather that they find gay people unworthy of equal rights under the law.

    And they find gay soldiers embracing “distrubing”.

  32. Agit8ed – So we are not to take the words they use on face value? Are they actually neutral as to gay people but inadvertently use unpleasant words? I don’t think either of us really believes that to be the case.

    I don’t practice in the area of civil rights litigation, so no I have no financial interest in the outcome.

  33. //It is an ugly step away from the traditional norms of civilization. Do not assume that it will be the only step.//

    Phantom, there have always been gays and gays living in homosexual relationships. Any change in the law is just a legal recognition of the de-facto situation, sort of like when divorce was introduced in Ireland (I also recall more or less the same arguments were used by those against the change: slippery slopes abounded, as did claims that the new law would pull apart every marriage etc.)

    There are by comparison very much fewer polygamous domestic arrangements, so there does not seem to be anything like a similar need for law Reform in that direction.
    Polygamy is also a lifestyle choice. Nobody is born a polygamist, probably least of all the women involved.

  34. In a couple of years time ‘gay marraige’ won’t even be a debating point here or mostly anywhere on the blogosphere.

  35. Colm – you may be right, but then again think how many times does one find oneself arguing over WW2, Watergate, The Easter Rising, Social Policy in the 1950s etc here?

  36. Colm’s right. In 10 years, this will be forgotten and the same old fogies will be protesting against England’s first gay king moving into Buckingham Palace with his husband, the queen.

    The anger will, however, be because the husband is a Northern Ireland Catholic, maybe even a republican. Some things don’t change, you know, “the integrity of their quarrel” and all that.

  37. Opposition to marriage equality is incredibly illogical. My partner and I opt not to marry. That’s our choice. We know gay couples who have no interest whatever in marrying, but we know other gay couples who want to marry. Every couple should be allowed to marry, or not, as they choose.

  38. Some people just love talking about gays.

    Chill out people, leave them alone.

  39. Some people just love talking about gays.

    Chill out people, leave them alone.

    Between them David Vance and Mike Cunningham have created six posts on the subject over the last three days.

  40. Pete

    Tell that to David and Mike Cunningham. They can’t stop banging on about them.

  41. Some people just love talking about gays.Chill out people, leave them alone.

    Couldn’t agree more. We could be having the gay version of the Thatcher death meltdown here on ATW. Are 20 gay posts in a row are in store?!?

  42. Tornados are quite scary and deadly. We have the lion’s share of them here in North America. The ones raging at the moment appear are terrible.

  43. Those lucky buggers in Oklahoma. I’d love to see an incoming tornado. It must be great.

    It has to be a very rare thing though. I’m a bloke who’s out and about all the time. I look up, I’m interested in the weather and clouds and all that meteorology stuff, and I’ve never seen a tornado.

    “But you live in Britain, Pete”, I hear them say.

    Yep, I live in Britain, the tornado capital of the world.

  44. Fox showed some brilliant video footage of it..like something from outer space. I read elsewhere thank god over here we are spared them despite all our grumbling about bad weather.

  45. kateyo & Pete

    You both seem to be rather inhumanely excited by these home destroying tornados – from a distance of course.

  46. Those lucky buggers in Oklahoma. I’d love to see an incoming tornado. It must be great

    I once saw lightening strike Pete. Incredible experience.

  47. ” My partner and I opt not to marry. That’s our choice,”

    Petr,
    from the little we know of you here I think most women would want to keep their options open..

    You’re always gadding about.
    You insist on wearing a studenty scarf at all times (God alone knows the problems that could cause in the marital bedroom)

    You collect tablecloths and you insist on bringing the oppressed home for lessons in Communism..
    What woman in her right mind would WANT to marry a man like that? 😉

  48. lol Agie.

    She has no problem with that. She is a life long soicalist too! 😉

  49. “I once saw lightening strike Pete. Incredible experience.”

    An even more incredible experience for Pete I would imagine 😉

Comments are closed.