|
|
Post by Progenitor A on May 26, 2012 9:26:30 GMT 1
This is hardly believable, but it is nevertheless true The Law Society has banned a conference to discuss the benefits of (heterosexual) marriage. It states that concentrating upon heterosexual marriage breaches its 'diversity' policy The venue was moved to the QE Hall (a government owned venue apparently)which has also banned the conference for similar reasons Such is the State of Modern Britain where the pet projects of the liberal left impose censorship of discussion on traditional institutions that have been here for centuries! I would find it unbelievable except that it is so commonplace - this is simply an extreme example of the imposition of PC fascism www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/social/marriage-colloquium-goes-ahead-despite-attempts-to-ban-it |
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on May 26, 2012 15:05:46 GMT 1
It is all part of the left wing feminist campaign to devalue and destroy heterosexual marriage.
The man's role within the family has already been largely taken over by the state, which pays for the much of the cost of raising children....not only the children's education and medical care but tax credits, maternity leave nurseries and much else besides. These days a father is an optional extra who can be dispensed with when convenient. He will be compelled to pay the bills for the family from which he has been excluded.
Although these people preach "equality", they have no intention of allowing others an equal right to express their opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on May 26, 2012 17:30:03 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 26, 2012 18:01:32 GMT 1
I have a feeling that some of the people who were claiming marriage was a repressive institution back in the 1960s are now demanding it for their gay pals. It's just the latest PC campaign. I'm sure that even amongst gay folk only a tiny minority are "demanding" it.
They already have legal partnership. They just want to take possession of the word MARRIAGE. Not content to be different but equal they are now messing with the dictionary to promote their nonsense.
Not so long ago these types were demanding that couples be called "partners" so that the wed and unwed were equal. Now they are demanding gay variant "husband" and gay variant "wife".
They are utter prats, worthy only of contempt. They even bring their own Political Correctness into disrepute! Enough is enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 26, 2012 20:55:13 GMT 1
The Law Society always seemed to have 'Liberal' leanings, if a political tag is attached to it. Some policies seem on the face of it reasonable but once examined have eccentric tendencies.
Like MM appears to be saying, the hi-jacking of words is the most niggling thing. Looked at from that point of view, it demonstrates the falseness of the case. Gay - in the new context, seems to exclude 50% of their number as they are far from happy. The term marriage is a union between man and woman. I sent a couple into deep sulk, on the use of 'husband' / 'wife' as they seemed to use the terms for each other interchangeably and resulted in me losing patience and demanding "which was bloody which?".
Having ideas imposed on one, eventually by law, is always a bad move, for in the long run it makes their case worse, as it goes against the grain of the majority of people. They win the PC battle but they won't win the majority war. That opinion comes from observation of 'kids' that have been put through the PC mill of education and still come to similar conclusions as their forebears did.
|
|
|
|
Post by striker16 on May 30, 2012 10:03:37 GMT 1
It's still quite astonishing that despite there being no scientific basis for homosexuality the law has been hijacked into enforcing the rights of a small minority of people who have made a conscious 'life-choice' about their sexual orientation. It seems to have reached the point now that even the slightest criticism of gayness and same-sex marriage is viewed as almost a heresy! What has the world come to? If this was another MB I would think twice about posting such a comment for fear of censure.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 31, 2012 14:43:03 GMT 1
And procreation of children has been thrown out of the window, too! What will become of non-consummation as a ground for divorce once (heterosexual) sex is taken out of the deal? This is just PC nonsense to assuage the weird predilections of a handful of gay political activists. My view is that what they really have in their sights is the Established Church of England, civil marriage is neither here nor there, it is just the precursor for the main attack. I went to a funeral this morning. Church, all the trimmings. Very tall (say 6'2") mannish, purportedly female, curate officiating. You'd never have guessed she was female if you just read the order of service details, called herself Jude rather than Judith - she looked just like Christ in Leonardo's Last Supper with long red locks hanging on her shoulders. I was sitting there thinking that some activists (and vicar herself) would think they had died and gone to heaven if she were to bless their union and "marry" them in that Church! Pandering to that tiny vocal minority means turning the whole concept of marriage upside down. The focus of militant homosexuals on the C of E is utterly incomprehensible, if you're rational, that is! I remain convinced that only when a lesbian is Archbishop of Canterbury and heterosexual male priests are banned will some of them be content. My pal, Jim, an Anglican priest, thinks they just like dressing up in the fancy vestments! Seriously, it's probably a big part of the allure for gay men, anyway. Not so sure about "Jude" but she certainly looked the part, standing head and shoulders above most of the very large congregation with long flowing pre-Raphaelite locks! Just to show I'm not exaggerating here is a pic of local C of E Curate Jude (Judith) alongside her inspiration, Christ.  Just a little more facial hair and hey presto!  I think Curate Jude could well be candidate for Archbish of Canterbury a few years down the line and Peter Tatchell would melt with ecstasy. She qualifies on height alone! Imagine a mitre on top of that head of hair! Splendiferous hardly captures it. Gays talk about needing "marriage" as the ultimate sign and demonstration of "commitment" that they wish to share in. What a load of tosh. The divorce stats reveal that as mumbo jumbo. A marriage certificate can add nothing to what is not already there. Even the Prince of Wales recognised he could not have an Anglican marriage with Camilla so they made do with a blessing. Gay Christians who yearn for the Church's approval can also have a blessing if they really NEED to get themselves into a Church venue for their nuptials! But they should leave marriage alone. Marriage involves a unique sexual component that the gay brands of sexuality don't satisfy - never, not nohow! (Something to do with creating a new human being?) Whatever happened to the concept of different but equal? |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 31, 2012 16:35:57 GMT 1
I'm told it's possible to use something called a "strap-on". Have you considered that, Marchesa? Hmmm?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 31, 2012 16:37:56 GMT 1
I bet the Prince of Wales has.
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 31, 2012 18:28:52 GMT 1
MM,
"The focus of militant homosexuals on the C of E is utterly incomprehensible"
Not really, they are a soft target. If they took on one of the larger religions they would get more than they expected. Imagine, say, the IRA would feel about the RC Church openly attacked by an homosexual/lesbian lobby, or say one of the Middle East organisations if their religions were lobbied.
I suppose a militant wing of the CofE might appear...
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 31, 2012 19:45:52 GMT 1
Does the Prince of Wales need a "strap-on", Mr Sonde?
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 31, 2012 19:51:31 GMT 1
Stu, given the "right-on-ness" of gay militants it just seems weird that they would bother their heads with the Established Church which atheist branches of PCdom are fighting to see off!
Even the RCs will be swinging to abandoning celibacy, accepting women priests and all the lesbian baggage that comes with that before very long. Mark my words! Mind you, the gay lobby will have a harder struggle with Rome than they have had with the C of E, that's true!
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 31, 2012 21:34:36 GMT 1
RC's [aka 'Left-Footers'] are 'naught but a minority' in this country, when compared to the world-wide Church. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism---- ...and as for the 'protestant' faiths from say Africa, they are less than tolerant of such behaviour. I've had some good conversations with them and that 'we are all guilty of discrimination to some extent'. That seems a far more honest approach than the blanket PC approach 'I abhor all forms of discrimination' type of statement, especially from politico's and some 'meejah' reps. In my work-life, we have come from interviews with 'shrinks' to check to make sure one wasn't, to an outward acceptance if one is. Well it's too late now the die is set and I find the expression 'bugger off' very fitting considering the circumstances. That answer has only ever been directed to the PC adherents and never to a 'follower' who usually prefer to go about their own life. At the moment we are living in this swing of the pendulum, but it will change back to something like it's been before. You can't ignore human nature, however many laws are passed. The two forms of life are mutually exclusive. |
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jun 1, 2012 8:38:24 GMT 1
Well thare hasalways been a slightly embarrassing snag with calling homosexual unions a 'marriage' and that is the small matter in English law on consummation radio4scienceboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=hobnobbing&thread=1373&post=16740To speak straight forwardly the act of consummation of marriage does not include sodomy or dildoic intercourse Therefore homosexual 'marriage' in English law is null and void and any homosexual couple that were 'married' under the proposed new law could have it automatically anulled This is silly isn't it? But our PC Governemnt is considering an answer to this predicament It is seeking to amend the law so that any references to sex in marriage are deleted! Just a minor amendment to laws that rae thundreds of years old and included sex for very specific reasons For those that are already married couples and may be worried by this development the government asures you that sex in marriage wil not be banned - it will just not be compulsoryany more to the marriage sacrament (good isn't it - the government deciding what is sacramental!) It is thought that the amended law on sex in marriage will not be retrospective as this would cause difficulties with the British monarchical successions with consequent reshufflings that would cause public dismay - especially during the Diamond Jubilee celebrations |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 1, 2012 12:15:44 GMT 1
Love that, nay, "Sex no longer compulsory!" Phew, that's all right then. I bet the gay fraternity were really worried they might be expected to deliver something in that department as part of the marriage contract.
|
|
