Gay “marriage”

Someone has to say something about this faux argument. It’s a personal view, not a position OoL necessarily takes one way or the other.

There was a comment I responded to in a thread on gay “marriage”, as crowbarred through by Cameron and masters:

There are many different kinds of family, James and perhaps mothers recognise this.

To which I responded:

Many different kinds, all heterosexual by biological definition. Otherwise the word is not family but partnership. A quite vital difference and one which millions of French demonstrated over in the streets, multiple times in Paris and elsewhere. No amount of sophistry will paper over that.

As always, the PTB have ulterior motives and an agenda. Just how many times has it happened, politically?

1. Unpleasant pill to swallow;
2. Demoralize a society to prepare it to receive the pill;
3. Block and bring into disrepute any sections of society which would oppose it, to the point that ordinary people are so taken with the Narrative that they ridicule opposition;
4. Introduce the pill amid a fanfare of love for our fellow man, universal tolerance, marriage etc., all make love to anyone as we wilt – humans, dogs, cats, pigs, all in together;
5. Open the media to a flood of such material to inure the people to accept it;
6. Control education to the point that only acceptance of this is grown-up and acceptable, all else is dark age hatred and cruelty to poor minorities;
7. Never allow the counter-argument ever to be put.

On how many political issues has that taken place – leaving aside the gay “marriage” issue for now?

And what is the counter-argument? Leave religion out of it, leave out attacks on gay people. If two gays form a partnership, what’s that to us?

If the gay mafia pushes for it to be a “marriage”, that’s an entirely different thing, not an extension in the least and this is behind the whole IVF nightmare:

There is another point, brought up by Ivan who comments here occasionally – he mentions an SF novel he read where a space traveller returns and the whole earth is gay. Population control. The breeding done under controlled circumstances. Eugenics in other words.

You think social engineering on a broad scale doesn’t happen? Ask Labour and their multicultural social re-engineering in this country which they’ve freely admitted.

This is a far cry from “oh we have to all be loving and gays should have the same rights as anyone else”.

This is sophistry at its worst. No one I know is arguing that gays can’t do what they wish with each other – that’s libertarianism.

But that has nothing to do with marriage and children. A commenter at my place whom I’d say is the sort of guy fellow-bloggers see commenting at our blogs – not religious, p***ed off at Westminster, you know the sort of thing – this is his comment:

I have to admit that I don’t give a damn what anyone’s choice of partner is. My objection is to the misuse of the word “marriage”. It has meant, for many years, a union between a man and a woman; therefore a union of two of the same sex cannot be a marriage. Let the proponents find a new word which can run parallel with marriage but be unmistakeable in its meaning. Mind you, “gay” was hijacked and misused so I imagine they’ll get away with this one, too.

The power of the word. The things done under its banner. “Marriage” means sexual offspring, otherwise it is barren. To try to make out we are “homophobic”, when in fact these people are “familyphobic” is yet more sophistry. It has zero to do with love and fairness. That’s not in the least the issue at stake.

Gays have the same rights as any citizens – they already have them as citizens. This crap about “denying their rights” is so much bullsh. No one is denying the normal rights of any citizen to live, work and form partnerships, except the very PTB who are trying to push this gay “marriage” through.

And as pointed out above and in the clip, there is very much an agenda behind it and it is global in scope.

It’s a beat-up, people, and the PTB know it full well.

14 comments for “Gay “marriage”

  1. Errol
    March 29, 2014 at 8:38 am

    The concept of gay marriage is an absurdity. It was pushed through under an EU demand by an anti democratic policy by a wet liberal dictatorship desperate to garner votes.

    It will ruin society. Two men, two women cannot marry in any sense of the word. It is not mariage.

    The isntitution has been devalued, the term derided and rubbished. If Cameron believed there was popular suport for this he would have put iit to referndum. He didn’t because there wasn’t. No one wanted this. The nation rejected it, but a revolting putrid slime forced it on us.

    Never again. There is no point voting. The entire edifice of government is corrupt and must be brought down and replaced.

  2. john in cheshire
    March 29, 2014 at 8:59 am

    James, I’m in full agreement with you. I think, too, that there are two levels on which this is being forced onto us; there is the childishness of the individuals, in that just like children they are stamping their little feet and screaming ‘I want it, I want it’, regardless of whether it’s good for them or not, or even if it is possible to have it. On the other level there are bad people scheming to destroy Christianity and will use every means to do so. These same people have warped the education system to produce masses of children to behave in this predictable way; all emotion and no intelligence.

  3. mona
    March 29, 2014 at 9:22 am

    Britain is now a PAGAN State, greed is the major religeon, sex is now a major neuro-toxin and weapon as with flouride, GMOs, Chem-trails and the vilest toxin of all the EU.

  4. David
    March 29, 2014 at 9:26 am

    There was a truly wonderful moment on the Today programme this morning. They broadcast, back to back, three different gay couplings which seemed to go on for ever (the BBC has never heard that less can be more). The cherry on the confection was that the ceremonies had taken place in Brighton, Islington and Mayfair. Who could possibly have predicted that, darling?

  5. Mudplugger
    March 29, 2014 at 9:44 am

    And now we have the bizarre situation where gay couples can choose between co-habitation, civil partnership or marriage, whereas others are discriminated against by only having a choice of two. Who’s the victim now ?

    It would have been far smarter to define all legally-santioned couplings as ‘civil partnerships’, then allowing the couples to add whatever further religious or other ceremony they may choose, or that they could personally negotiate with the service providers.

    The state should only be involved in the legality, any ceremonial should be left to the parties involved. It follows that all churches should be disallowed from registering partnerships – this is a civil matter and should be conducted directly by a state-appointed registar.

  6. March 29, 2014 at 10:12 am

    Agree with all the above. Is the next step then to oppose the political agenda which involves IVF babies with no link to their biological parents and not allowed any?

    I don’t think it’s fanciful to start thinking of a William S Burroughs scenario in twenty years:

    http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23930.The_Wild_Boys

    Married couples in the UK now below half of all couples, how many of them are happy and how many headed for divorce?

    Talking stability here – rounded people who know who their parents are, where their home and playground is, educated not to be taken in by all this crap but if there were a genuine threat, with enough sense of who they are to oppose that threat if they so wish, voluntarily.

    Put simply, NO to any social engineering by government whatsoever. If there’s to be any social engineering, it’s by parents and goes as far as their biological family and no further.

  7. Rossa
    March 29, 2014 at 11:06 am

    Amanda Platell in the DM today asking who the real bigots are in view of what happened on Question Time this week, when a woman dared to confront this situation. A poll after the programme purports to suggest that 2/3rds are supporters of gay marriage, which means there is still a third and probably a lot more than that who are against. All depends on who they ask, doesn’t it.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2592091/AMANDA-PLATELL-The-real-gay-marriage-bigots-intolerant-supporters.html

    • Ed P
      March 29, 2014 at 8:13 pm

      Amazing – only 2/3rds of a hand-picked and vetted BBC “audience” agreed!

  8. Mike O
    March 29, 2014 at 9:51 pm

    The words “gay marriage” distinguish this charade from the marriage my wife and I know. Always use “gay marriage” to avoid confusion and keep this distinction.

    • Ed P
      March 30, 2014 at 2:15 pm

      Garried?

      • mikebravo
        March 30, 2014 at 8:24 pm

        Garried? Is that as “up the Gary Glitter”?

      • Mudplugger
        March 30, 2014 at 9:26 pm

        But that would make it a ‘Garriage’, as in Farage.

  9. April 1, 2014 at 7:13 pm

    How about a Buggeriage.

  10. Junican
    April 2, 2014 at 12:06 am

    The comment quoted sounds very like mine some time ago – not that it matters who said it.’Marriage’ between people of the same ‘gender’ is not marriage. In a male couple, who is the ‘husband’ and who is the ‘wife’? The same applies to female couples. Or do both males call each other ‘husband’ (or ‘wife’) and do female couples call each other ‘wife’ (or ‘husband’)? And how do they introduce themselves and each other? “This is my ‘huswife'”? Or “This is my ‘wifehus'”?

    What I cannot understand is why the various religious leaders (Archbish of Canterbury, etc) have not excommunicated Cameron, and all those MPs who voted for this law. They should have said, “Never set foot inside our churches and cathedrals again” And sod the consequences.

    It isn’t the legal couplings that I object to. It is the deforming of ideals by the deforming of our language. For example, the word ‘help’ can now mean ‘force’, and the word ‘educate’ can now mean ‘brainwash’.

Comments are closed.