Government to enact gay 'marriage' by 2015

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/pl...-marriage.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tain-2015.html

Roger Helmer MEP: Why the government is wrong on same-sex marriage

Roger Helmer is a Conservative MEP. He blogs here and recently published "Sceptic At Large". The Coalition government, apparently with the personal support of the Prime Minister, wants to introduce a bill to allow same-sex marriage. I think it is wrong.

Roger Helmer MEP: Although a member of the Conservative Party, at least he's conservative.

There. I’ve said it. And because any comment on homosexuality, at least from the right-hand-side of the house, attracts a storm of vituperation from the monstrous regiment of the politically-correct, I’d better get my rebuttal in first.

I don’t approach this as a question of morality. Indeed I take a broadly libertarian approach. I am content, subject to the usual caveats on consenting adults, for people to do pretty much as they please, though in some cases I’d be grateful if they could avoid doing it in the street and frightening the horses.

Of course I know that some people find the idea of homosexual behaviour repugnant. Maybe some homosexuals find the idea of heterosexual behaviour repugnant. And as a libertarian, I support the right of people to hold those opinions, just as I support the right of individuals to behave as they choose -- though it seems that in these politically-correct times, it is no longer acceptable to voice such views. It is worth adding that these opinions may be intrinsic, and not a matter of choice. I did not (for example) choose to like ice-cream and to dislike foie gras. It’s just the way I feel.

But how we feel about one behaviour or another is beside the point. My opposition to “gay marriage” is based not on the moral status or æsthetic appeal of homosexuality, but on quite different considerations.
First, a pedantic point. While legislators may occasionally need to define some technical term in the context of a piece of legislation, it is not the business of government to legislate to change the meaning of a common and well-established word, and least of all a word that describes such a key institution in society. The government doesn’t own the English language: the people do.

Second, yes, marriage is a right, but marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Everyone should have the right to marry, and no one seeks to deny that right to anyone else. And if they choose for personal reasons not to marry, that’s up to them. The question is whether a vocal lobby group can change the meaning of the word to suit an entirely different relationship. Everyone should have the right to procreate, but that doesn’t mean that a man can or should get pregnant. There are certain things that people can and cannot do because of their gender. It’s a limit placed on us by nature and biology, not by law.

Thirdly (and it cannot be stressed too often) marriage is a relationship between three parties: a woman, a man and society. Society down the ages has recognised marriage, and offered married couples recognition, respect and often financial benefits in terms of taxation and inheritance, because society recognises the importance of the institution. The expectation is that marriage will generally lead to procreation and children, and that the resultant nuclear family will promote stability in society, replenish the population, and provide the ideal circumstances in which children can be raised and socialised.

A same-sex partnership is a relationship between two parties, not three, and there is no reason why society should treat it in the same way as marriage, because it does not offer the same broad benefits to society as a whole. It is an entirely private matter between two individuals. It is their own affair, and there is no reason why it should be of interest or concern to anyone else. Finally (and a key point): any attempt to broaden the definition of marriage to include other relationships can only be seen as a deliberate device to dilute, demean and diminish the institution of marriage as it is generally understood. If marriage becomes broader, it becomes shallower, and the vital importance of marriage in our society will be further eroded.

Various Conservative politicians, not least Iain Duncan Smith, have argued passionately that marriage and the family are the bedrock on which our society is built, that children raised in a conventional family do better on a host of measures than those raised elsewhere, and that many of the problems our society faces are created or exacerbated by the widespread break-down of marriage as an institution. I believe that IDS is right, and it is clear that this proposal to recognise “same-sex marriage” further undermines this vital institution, and is a move in precisely the wrong direction.

I shall have to add this Coalition initiative to the long and growing list of government policies which I am unable to support.

As a libertarian-conservative myself, I am conservative in outlook but libertarian in method. In terms of sorting this debate out, legalising gay 'marriage' is not the way to go. The government should simply remove itself from marriage and allow organisations/individuals to decide marriage contracts between themselves - whether you want a pagan marriage or a marriage between yourself and your computer desk.

This libertarian solution would allow whatever people want as I said, gay marriage, incest marriage, marriage between objects and people and you can call it marriage or whatever you want. But as a conservative, the only marriage I will ever accept or view as marriage will be marriage between a man and a woman in a Church/place of worship.

I believe marriage is sacred between a man and a woman, and embodies the married family and should be protected by all possible means - it is vital in any civilisation which puts righteousness before lust, which we have slipped away from just as past civilisations did before us.

The once dominant Pound is close to worthlessness, NHS waiting lists have gone up, violent crime is on the increase, our already overcrowded country is being flooded with tens of thousands of unskilled, so-called workers every single week and the EU is demanding yet more money from us. And what does Cameron concentrate his efforts on? Marriage between two blokes.

- Jess, Liverpool, UK, 17/9/2011 1:50

But if this isn't more evidence that the Conservative Party is no longer conservative, I don't know what else can be. The supporters of the party who are conservative continue to vote for it in the vain hope that it will stand up for conservatism against fabian socialism, and time and time again it utterly fails. The likes of Roger Helmer and millions across this country need to realise that the party will continue to trample on their beliefs and spit on them whilst in office.

We should have a referendum on these issues at the very least as UKIP want, but whats interesting is that (to my knowledge) I don't think it [gay 'marriage'] ever been passed by the people at large in a referendum. Now doesn't that tell you something on why issues such as this are never put to the public vote? what a stake through the heart of the 'equality' revolutionaries that would be.

The runaway train of militant homosexuality rolls on.

Thoughts?

[Ardemax]

It's weird this should crop up because I'm doing law in school atm and the topic about civil partnership came up, and everyone was discussing how gays should be allowed to marry and blah blah blah. Of course, I don't agree with gays being allowed to marry (that does not mean a civil partnership) because marriage is between a man and a woman.

If you would like to "join" to people together, then do so through other means, marriage is religious, religion does not agree with homosexuality, therefore a gay marriage would come as a mockery to a LOT of people.

Imo, I couldn't care less if someone is gay, but if the "pro-gays" start changing laws and rules in society left right and centre, I can see things getting messy (no, not like that).

I would say that a referendum should be in order for this to be passed, or what not.

[FlyingJesus]

His point is moot as marriage isn't traditionally a contract between "a woman, a man, and society" but between two persons (whom by way of this contract become one) and God. In the beginnings of the institution of marriage it wasn't even limited to that as polygamy was only - in terms of the absolute history of man - abolished fairly recently, and even now still goes on in some parts of the world. Helmer states that the government doesn't own the English language, then places his own (wrong) spin on our words and their history, himself committing the act he quite rightly condemns. Despite what truths and untruths there may be in his more detailed arguments, it's nigh on impossible to have a decent debate with someone who doesn't even have grounding for the "facts" he's placed out.

[Inseriousity.]

This really depends on your interpretation as marriage. I do not see marriage between man and woman. I see marriage as lover and lover whether they're gay, lesbian or straight. Comparing procreation and marriage makes no sense because procreation is a biological act and marriage is socially constructed.

[dbgtz]

It's weird this should crop up because I'm doing law in school atm and the topic about civil partnership came up, and everyone was discussing how gays should be allowed to marry and blah blah blah. Of course, I don't agree with gays being allowed to marry (that does not mean a civil partnership) because marriage is between a man and a woman.

If you would like to "join" to people together, then do so through other means, marriage is religious, religion does not agree with homosexuality, therefore a gay marriage would come as a mockery to a LOT of people.

Imo, I couldn't care less if someone is gay, but if the "pro-gays" start changing laws and rules in society left right and centre, I can see things getting messy (no, not like that).

I would say that a referendum should be in order for this to be passed, or what not.

Well feminists were able to change laws and eventually the "equality" they brought actually lead to them getting superior things and much better treated in society, although some of them would just tackle anything. I mean I was watching the documentary on BBC3 about injunctions and the presenter (Rob Webb I think) said "do you think it's a bit unfair that the men can afford the injunctions and get out of the press' eye" and then she replied "yes it is a bit sexist" which totally baffled me, as it isn't at all. And the moment the "gay community" actually get their voice properly heard, then it is the moment where white straight males are screwed in terms of discrimination.

I think these people demanding gay marriage need to get a better view on this. I mean if you love them, then why should marriage matter and if marriage matters that much, why are you trying to do it with a man when it isn't allowed as "stated" in religious materials. Marriage, in my eyes, only really brings complications for the most part unless you can be sure that someone truely loves you and nothing will go majourly wrong, which is impossible to know. I mean if you get divorced, it could cost you so much and marriage today is just a "thing", with many people getting divorces not long after etc. It's ridiculous how society on the whole approves of marriage because of this, and it's hypocritcal how one day I will probably get married as I know girls generally like that kind of thing, so if I meet one who does then I most likely will assuming I care enough.

[Technologic]

I have a right to be miserable too. Also, what does gay marriage do? Really? Society has collapsed already so things aren't going to get worse....

[October]

Why is marriage in quotes?

[-:Undertaker:-]

His point is moot as marriage isn't traditionally a contract between "a woman, a man, and society" but between two persons (whom by way of this contract become one) and God. In the beginnings of the institution of marriage it wasn't even limited to that as polygamy was only - in terms of the absolute history of man - abolished fairly recently, and even now still goes on in some parts of the world. Helmer states that the government doesn't own the English language, then places his own (wrong) spin on our words and their history, himself committing the act he quite rightly condemns. Despite what truths and untruths there may be in his more detailed arguments, it's nigh on impossible to have a decent debate with someone who doesn't even have grounding for the "facts" he's placed out.

A marriage is traditionally and absolutely a contract between a man and a woman ever since we have been a Christian country (both Catholic and Protestant), to pretend otherwise is delusional. Marriage embodies the traditional family.

..and thats something, ever since the 1960s cultural revolution, that has been worn away with disasterous consquences.

I have a right to be miserable too. Also, what does gay marriage do? Really? Society has collapsed already so things aren't going to get worse....

We don't have to stamp all over its corpse.

[Technologic]

In my view, gay marriage should be allowed but it must NOT be forced upon any religious institution, individual vicars, priests (unlikely lolol) etc must be able to decide whether they want to conduct gay marriages. If they don't then fine, if they do then good on them. I know this will limit the number of venues but it would be the least controversial option imo. I've been to a few civil partnerships which have been conducted in the presence of a vicar and then blessed by them and they were all forward thinking and willing to conduct gay marriages when it eventually becomes legalised.

[-:Undertaker:-]

In my view, gay marriage should be allowed but it must NOT be forced upon any religious institution, individual vicars, priests (unlikely lolol) etc must be able to decide whether they want to conduct gay marriages. If they don't then fine, if they do then good on them. I know this will limit the number of venues but it would be the least controversial option imo. I've been to a few civil partnerships which have been conducted in the presence of a vicar and then blessed by them and they were all forward thinking and willing to conduct gay marriages when it eventually becomes legalised.

Or any institution for that matter.

But we all know it will be forced upon organisations who conduct marriages.