Google+ Followers

Sunday, 11 March 2012

There can be no such thing as gay 'Marriage'

The plans to legalise gay 'marriage' as opposed to 'civil partnership' outlined by the Conservative Party of all people has left me somewhat nonplussed.

Add caption
It is similar to me campaigning to have the right to bare children, even though I do not have a womb in which the foetus can gestate nor the requisite biology to ever utilize that right which a change in law may give.

Stonewall has become a pressure group which is increasingly out of touch with reality, homosexuality will never be the norm (unless you believe the conspiracy theory that they are flooding the water with female hormones to achieve exactly this of course), homosexuals will always be different. The challenge is not to make other people think you are the same, but to accept it and celebrate the difference. People for some reason attempt to gain acceptance from other people, instead of simply accepting themselves.

I remember when Daren O'Toole first showed me the proposition for Civil Partnership which is shortly due to become law in Jersey and my one contribution to the proposal was to ensure that there was a differentiation between Civil Partnership and Marriage.

Civil Partnership grants the exact same legal rights to a couple as Marriage does (and coincidentally the exact same opportunities for a divorce lawyer to steal from you), indeed I see no reason why heterosexual couples could not choose Civil Partnership if they were not religious.

But Marriage is an Oath made to God, it is an oath made between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, for the purpose of procreation. A means of providing a secure and stable environment in which the offspring of that marriage can develop.

I have every support for a civil partnership who want to be able to make a will to benefit their partner to ensure that the surviving partner is financially secure when the inevitable occurs.

The very notion of a gay marriage makes an absurdity of the entire British legal system. On numerous occasions I have posted about how the bible, the Noachide laws, the ten commandments and Jesus's refinements of those commandments is at the very heart of our laws, morality and administration.

The legalisation of 'Gay Marriage' is fundamentally flawed as it interferes with the trust between each man and God, a place where man has no right to intervene. A civil partnership confers the same worldly rights as a marriage, but not the spiritual aspects, such spiritual aspects cannot be conferred by Man and they are not conferred by God to a homosexual union.

Fundamentally, I have no right to tell you who to be civil partnered to nor who you can have sexual relations with nor how to live your life in any way, but likewise you have to be aware of the consequences of your actions. However it can NEVER be a holy union in the eyes of God.

Just as I support the right of people to vote for Phillip Bailhache, it does not mean that I think they are correct to do so. I still must retain the right to vote for ANYONE BUT Phillip Bailhache. Those of you who vote for Bailhache should have a bit more pride in your actions, I take pride in NOT having voted for him. It was the only wise course as far as I am concerned, it is just a shame that more people who voted for him do not stand up and be counted.

So homosexuals have the same legal rights expressed through Civil Partnership as married people, there is no discrimination, but they will never be married. The English Language is capable of many layers of definition, that some people may imagine an advantage or disadvantage in one form or another is neither here nor there. Some things are just different. Marriage is a heterosexual union, call it what you will a homosexual partnership is not the same thing at all.

I have had to accept that I will never be a mother, so maybe homosexuals should just accept that you will never be married and get on with something more important than arguing over legal definitions?