 |
| George Orwell statue unveiled outside BBC Broadcasting House Source: Telegraph |
The First Minister of Scotland sounded utterly convinced that only her views could possibly be correct when offering her "unequivocal" apology to gay men convicted of sexual offences that are no longer illegal.
She said "the simple fact was that parliamentarians in Scotland had, over many decades, supported or at least accepted laws which "we now recognise to have been completely unjust... Hundreds of people in Scotland were liable to be convicted as criminals, simply for loving another adult."
If Ms Sturgeon feels secure enough to condemn previous law makers as in error, why did she twist the facts? She was correct only in that it took law makers in Scotland more than a decade to catch up with reforms to the law in England and Wales in 1976.
My understanding of the legislation to which she objected was that convictions were not for loving another adult but for buggery. The law was changed after the Wolfenden report recommended that "homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in private should no longer be a criminal offence".
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 granted civil partnerships rights and responsibilities in the United Kingdom very similar to civil marriage. A reform welcomed across the political spectrum but not good enough for activists who demand that marriage be redefined in the name of supposed equality.
The LGBT lobby has had considerable success with newspeak. Constant repetition of the words 'love' and 'equality' in relation to same sex marriage has provided a smokescreen to achieve an objective which undermines the basis of family live, the joining together of a man and a woman for the procreation of children without which civilisation as we know it would end.
But what about infertile couples? they claim, before advocating adoption by gay couples, the use of surrogates and more recently, womb transplants allowing men to have babies. There is little if any thought for the effects in later life on the children resulting from such unions.
Gay couples can live together in circumstances similar to civil marriage without fear of prosecution but acceptance has turned into demands. Now the tail wags the dog. Even Anglican bishops are content to demean the sanctity of marriage by agreeing to legitimise that which is contrary to Christian teaching.
The First Minister's misuse of the word love was a precursor to linking same sex marriage with equality, condemning supporters of traditional marriage as lacking integrity, wisdom, compassion and justice using words such as wrong, homophobia, hate, fear, discrimination, prejudice and bigotry, the implication being that opponents of same sex marriage are bigoted, prejudiced people who lack compassion and a sense of justice.
There is no justice in condemning people simply for having an opposing view. In years to come as the Church crumbles and society further disintegrates, another First Minister could be standing in Ms Sturgeon's place condemning others for supporting or at least accepting laws which "we now recognise" to have been completely stupid.
Presumbly Ms Sturgeon believes that if I was so inclined I could marry my sister. Or if my wife and I love another adult we should be able to have a polyamorous marriage. I mean, how dare the state make laws to criminalise or deny such loving consensual unions? Bigots!
ReplyDeleteHurray! Now we can all marry whoever we want!
ReplyDeleteGreat news! I’ll marry Carol Vorderman, then.
But she’s already married.
But you just said we can marry whoever we want.
Oh. Well, what I meant was: we can all marry whoever we want as long as they’re not already married to someone else.
OK. Not Carol Vorderman, then. I’ll marry Nigella Lawson.
How do you know Nigella Lawson?
I’ve never even met her, but you just said we can marry whoever we want as long as they’re not already married to someone else.
Well, what I meant was: we can all marry whoever we want as long as they’re not already married to someone else, AND you know them (and they want to marry you).
OK. Not Nigella Lawson either. I know - I’ll marry my sister.
You can’t marry your sister.
Go on – why not?
OK. We can all marry whoever we want as long as they’re not already married to someone else, and you know them, and they want to marry you, AND you’re not a close relative. Hold on! You’re already married!
So?
Right. Listen. We can all marry whoever we want as long as they’re not already married to someone else, and you know them, and they want to marry you, and you’re not a close relative, and you’re not already married.
So we can’t actually marry whoever we want?
No, I suppose not.
I thought it was all so simple now!
From 'the Observer':
ReplyDeletePeople with far left views have connived at the destruction of traditional marriage for the last century. In the early days of the Soviet Union there was even an attempt to abolish marriage.
As the July 1926 edition of ‘The Atlantic’ reported:
‘When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917 they regarded the family, like every other 'bourgeois' institution, with fierce hatred, and set out with a will to destroy it. ….A law was passed which made divorce a matter of a few minutes…. Chaos was the result. Men took to changing wives with the same zest which they displayed in the consumption of the recently restored forty-per-cent vodka.…Peasant boys looked upon marriage as an exciting game and changed wives with the change of seasons. It was not an unusual occurrence for a boy of twenty to have had three or four wives, or for a girl of the same age to have had three or four abortions.’
Stalin backed away from the destruction of marriage when he realised the social harm it was doing. But Marxist theorists such as Antonio Gramsci still called for it’s abolition.
The destruction of traditional marriage has been connived at by easy divorce, and the trend to have children outside of marriage. Paul VI reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s ban on artificial contraception partly he could see that it makes having children within marriage optional. So marriage becomes more about partnership than having a family, which in turns leads to demands for gay marriage.
Once gay marriage was in place, there were bound to be demands for same sex couples to have equal rights to adopt children, if they wished.
But the recent case of the Llandaff fitness instructor who murdered his adopted daughter shows what can go wrong.
Even if Mr Scully-Hicks was a good man, what use would he have been to the girl when she was going through puberty?
Two men in their twenties adopting a little girl. What could go wrong?
DeleteCrazy world is it not Ed ?
DeleteGood to see a statue of George Orwell, a writer I greatly admire, outside the BBC HQ. That will surely appeal to all the Pinkos employed by Auntie although I think the cigarette should be removed as I feel sure that the Beeb has a NO SMOKING policy on all its premises. Looking at this new statue I am reminded of nothing more than the words of "I'm a little Teapot short and stout, here;s my handle, here's my spout!"
ReplyDelete"If liberty means anything at all"... it means the right to blow the whistle on that which is false, fraudulent and criminal.
ReplyDeleteThe attempt to whitewash recent events at Llandaff will not succeed. Light must be shed on the dark places and the twisted little men who thrive in the darkness. When the whole history of nepotism, lies, blackmail, deviance and fraud is made public, any surviving trust in the Church in Wales will be destroyed.
Our Lord cleared the Temple of the money changers and thieves. Alas a number of them set up shop at the unlucky cathedral by the Taff. If the place is not to fall into ruin another time, they need to be cast out anew.
Your comments apply to every other Cathedral close and Chapter in Wales H S.
ReplyDeleteThey are all of them in very serious trouble. The generational lack of leadership, the lack of priests and the collapse of the congregations mean this Church is heading over the precipice. The senior clergy have neither the vision nor the courage to do anything about it. On this 500th anniversary of the Reformation, I look in vain for anyone with Luther's zeal or energy.
DeleteThe last time I encountered a gathering of Llandaff's "great and good" from the upper echelons of the priesthood, I was struck by their sclerotic self-satisfied demeanour. If the churches are empty they merely reflect the empty hearts and heads of the ecclesiastics. Maybe there are a few good men amongst them but they have never stood up for their beliefs.
In the face of such lily-livered representatives who are patently more concerned about job security than doing what is right, it's no surprise that congregations have walked away. The best priests inspire and guide their people. I think such qualities are actively discouraged in the Church in Wales and it is now reaping the results.
In the meantime, steady as she goes and don't rock the boat are the watchwords from the hierarchy. Having been informed of the abuses taking place in the church through the good efforts of this blog, and the earnest churchgoers who have done their utmost to stop the decline, the bishops merely blink and make ineffectual gestures. Barry Morgan's appointment as Archbishop was the coup de grace but the rot set in long before that.
The Church in Wales tipped over the lip of the precipice the day Darth Insidious was made Archbishop and is already in a death plunge into the ravine. It just hasn't hit the rocky bottom yet but the impact is imminent.
DeleteSignificantly, Rabbi Lord Sacks, the former Chief Rabbi, who is the only religious leader anyone takes any notice of these days (including John Humphrys!) presented Thought for the Day yesterday. His words have a certain resonance on this blog.
ReplyDelete"Coming in to Broadcasting House this morning I saw for the first time the statue unveiled this week, of George Orwell, with its inscription on the wall behind, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” How badly we need that truth today... a month ago, students at an Oxford College banned the presence of a representative of the Christian Union on the grounds that some might find their presence alienating and offensive... You don’t achieve that by silencing dissenting views. A safe space is the exact opposite: a place where you give a respectful hearing to views opposed to your own, knowing that your views too will be listened to respectfully. That’s academic freedom and it’s essential to a free society. Because truth emerges from disagreement and debate. Because tolerance means making space for difference. Because justice involves Audi alteram partem, listening to the other side. And because, in Orwell’s words, liberty means “the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
Not the sentiments of people like Barry the Golfer, or even Shirley of Brecon (who is promising 'more of the same') or those who seem rather uncomfortable about the way AB is shining a spotlight on the dark recesses of Llandaff Cathedral.
Am I alone Vicky in seeing certain similarities between the current desolate condition of the Church in Wales and Animal Farm?
ReplyDeletePeggy the Pilate and Jenny the Wiggler wanted a 'safe space' in Wales where those who cannot share their convictions about the ordination of women are silenced, excluded and diminished. They cannot bear to hear a counter argument expressed, or to be challenged by difference. Am I alone in thinking that their illiberal liberalism has completely squashed liberty in the Church in Wales?
ReplyDelete