Monday, 19 March 2012

The case against gay marriage

The government has embarked on a twelve-week consultation on "gay" marriage ending on the 14th of June, with the clear intention of making marriage equally available to heterosexuals and homosexuals. Public opinion is polarised: the Pope has called the idea insidious and dangerous. Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, said the "grotesque" plans would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world" if implemented. However some Quaker and Jewish leaders are in favour.

Same sex civil unions, giving all the benefits of marriage, were introduced into the UK in 2004, but it seems that is not enough - they must have actual marriage.

There are essentially two components to the case against homosexual marriage.

The first is that is weakens the institution of marriage. Marriage is a religious sacrament (one of the seven sacred sacraments; the others being: baptism, confirmation, communion, confession, holy orders and extreme unction.) Marriage is stated as a union between a man and a women for the purpose of producing children. And there was a time when a child produced out of wedlock had poor prospects - without a welfare state the mother and child would be dependent on charity at best and starve to death at worst. Marriage was a vital tool to bind a man to a woman and make sure he supported her ever after. Now, it's true that in the UK a lot of children are born out of wedlock and the taxpayer generally looks after them. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The taxpayer's generosity should be the last resort, not the first. Too many children are produced these days by unmarried mothers who have no means and no intention of paying their own baby's keep. The institution of marriage needs to be strengthened, not further weakened.

So marriage is an institution in trouble. Allowing homosexuals to marry diverts the institution further from its core purpose. It's quite true that some men and women marry knowing ahead of time that they will not or cannot have children. But at least they are following the intended template and a child is possible. Homosexuals marrying completely subverts the institution and renders it even weaker and more pointless.

The second argument against homosexual marriage is that it would tend to legitimise homosexuality. In the UK homosexuality was illegal until 1967. Since decriminalisation, homosexuals have been attempting to gain ever increasing acceptance of their deviant behaviour. Muscling in on the institution of marriage is just the most recent initiative aimed at embedding their perversion into society. It should be remembered that homosexuality is not normal; has no biological basis; and is generally harmful to health and well-being. Although one must accept that homosexuals did not ask to be born homosexual and we should be tolerant enough to allow them their abhorrent practices in private, that does not mean we have to accept the legitimacy of homosexuality generally. It is very much an "alternative" lifestyle and should be tolerated only on that basis.


Anonymous said...

I want to strangle you.

Anonymous said...

"It should be remembered that homosexuality is not normal; has no biological basis...Although one must accept that homosexuals did not ask to be born homosexual"


Anonymous said...

Marriage is a natural institution in that it exists in every society and culture and every century.

It only becomes a sacrament when the marriage union is made before the altar in an orthodox Christian Church.

I was recently re-reading the OT on Sodom and Gomorrah. The end game of the homosexual cult is that all males will be required to be initiated in the practice.


Nationalist said...

I should probably respond to these comments despite this post being rather old....

First, to Anon above: it is perfectly possible to be born in a manner that is biologically incorrect. For example to be born with only one arm would be unfortunate and undesirable. Likewise homosexual.

And to Bevois: Indeed, the predatory nature of homosexuals knows no limits. They will always want more. Giving them as little as possible is prudent.

But, I'm not totally convinced marriage is a natural human institution; certainly not monogamous marriage. I think it may be an artefact (and sine qua non) of civilisation. There have been many societies which did not practise monogamy, but they seem characterised by instability and inequality. Inventing monogamy is (probably) one of the pillars that allowed Western civilisation to flourish; also democracy, rule of law, equality in law, etc, etc.

Anonymous said...

"Too many children today are produced by unmarried mothers...". How clever of these unmarried mothers to produce children all by themselves. Are you absolutely sure that a feckless, surly and irresponsible man wasn't involved in the conception? The only reason single mothers exist is because the men who get them pregnant go on the run from their responsibilities and women face up to them. I don't want to pay for somebody else's children any more than the next Taxpayer but it is the guilty male that should be equally villified for shirking his responsibilities and be made to pay higher taxes to replenish the Government coffers to pay for the mother's benefits. It is high time that men in this country became real men and provide for their children and the mothers of their children, married or not. In my father's day, many men would have been shamed into marrying the woman he got pregnant - often by threats of a beating from the woman's family. Ah, the good old days.

Nationalist said...

Ah yes, the old it takes two to tango response.

The male contribution is minimal and the decision as to whether to produce a baby is entirely the mother's. No contraception is foolproof but the mother can terminate the pregnancy anytime up to the legal limit.

I certainly agree men should support the babies they produce and that the state should make them do this, but only in the context of marriage.

Marriage is the contractual commitment that shows both parties want to support each other for life.