After the American Civil War a number of politician who supported the freeing of slaves, still did not believe
be they should be treated equally as blacks and should be denied the right of citizenship.
They may be free they argued but they are not equal.
Last night those MPs who voted against Gay Marriages where saying a similar thing .
Being Gay may be legal but it is you should not have the same status as heterosexuals.
There may be some who hid under the guise of religious conviction but religion has nothing to do with the legality of marriage ever since the introduction of Civil marriages
Under the proposed legislation no religious institution will be forced to conduct same -sex marriages if they did not want to.
What those MPs who voted against the legislation last night was not them acting out of religious conviction but them displaying their inherent prejudices.
I don't know if Gays would prefer those who oppose them being treated equally being honest in their disapproval of their sexuality. But it seems to me to be preferable to them hiding behind mealy words about the sanctity of marriage between a man and a women.
3 comments:
I beg to disagree, at least in part.
It's not simply a matter of equality. It involves a radical redefinition of the concept of marriage. If and when homosexual 'marriage' becomes law, the meaning of the term 'marriage' will have been changed for everyone who participates in the union. Lesbians and gays will have achieved equality, but they won't have 'marriage' as it is defined now, it will be something different. That has consequences for the whole of society.
I'm not a Catholic and speak as a liberal, left-leaning Nonconfomist. I think it's a case of 'fools rush in...'. There will eventually, imho, be a price to pay in the future society we live in.
Men and women are anatomically different, Equality between the sexes can only be achieved to a certain extent, but has to reflect the basic functions which the sexes perform for society, that of producing offspring.
One aspect of marriage law is that of kinship, and the prohibition of marriage between close blood relatives. Such restrictions would be unnecessary in some same-sex 'marriages' because of the impossibility of conception by the couples in question.
There will therefore be different degrees of 'marriage', and not the equality so much desired by some in the gay community.
Sometimes we just have to accept that difference makes equality difficult if not impossible.
I'm sorry I don't see the problem you may have a point about blood relatives but then that would apply to the current civil partnerships.
Thousands of heterosexual people marry and don't intend to have children . Whats the diffrence?
The point I am making, Glyn, is that though it will still be called 'marriage', it will be something different. Marriage as it is now will be gone forever. This is something that the equality brigade seem to have difficulty accepting - some even deny it.
Post a Comment