Tuesday, 13 March 2012

I'm Weary With The SSM Debate

I'm weary with the same-sex marriage debate. It seems to have taken the similar importance to the Independence debate.

Also I'm weary reading about men having babies and being told I must accept the changes in society. I wasn't weary 6 months ago but the subject of same sex marriage continues to feature prominently in the media. It can't be because it features highly on the radar or most of us who are far more concerned with the economy and making ends meet. Who are pulling the strings here in order to change society so radically?

It would seem there is a tiny, but highly vocal, SSM minority in society which insists upon having the best of all worlds and to hell with the consequences. They don't speak for the many thousands of people who quietly live with a same sex partner and who are very uncomfortable with the gay lobby's insistence that they should be legally entitled to possess a marriage certificate.

Only a few years ago much parliamentary time - and money - was spent on the introduction of civil partnership legislation and rightly so. Anyone who decides to live together and share their lives should be entitled to the same benefits a married couple enjoy.  However, the civil partnership legislation was mainly for same sex couples and did not give any consideration to say same sex best friends living together or same sex siblings in that position. Often older (mainly) women, when they've been widowed, decide to share a home with another widow friend and they make their legal arrangements through a solicitor.

However I appreciate those who are in a sexual relationship may want to make a public declaration. The cart is put before the horse where marriage is concerned these days. The children are now the page boys or bridesmaids. Have divorces decreased now that so many are trying before buying?  No.

Cranmer wonders why the Church of Scotland is so silent on the gay marriage issue and he states 'Gay Marriage will be Cameron's Poll Tax'. He may well be right. Tories are an invisible breed in Scotland at the present.

 Part of the reason I suspect is that the CoS (not the General Assembly) has voted to allow gays and lesbians to become ministers. The vote follows warnings that allowing gay and lesbian clergy could split the church and, with the reducing membership, the last thing the CoS needs is a mass exodus of members.  The General Assembly has yet to decide whether to allow gay and lesbian ministers who are sexually active but only those in stable, long-term relationships, or whether to demand celibacy of gay ministers. Only the General Assembly of the CoS has the authority to commit the Kirk to accepting or rejecting the Scottish government's proposals.

In a statement last December the CoS said:

"The government's proposal fundamentally changes marriage as it is understood in our country and our culture - that it is a relationship between one man and one woman. 

"In common with the historic position of the Christian Church, the Church of Scotland has always viewed marriage as being between one man and one woman. 

"Scriptural references to marriage, whether literal or metaphorical, all operate under this understanding.

"To redefine marriage to include same-sex marriage may have significant and, as yet, inadequately considered repercussions for our country, for the well-being of families, communities and individuals."

Ministers in the CoS are currently able to refuse to perform baptisms, marriages or funerals, although refusals are not common.

It's now more obvious than ever that the Scottish Government will introduce legislation which permits same sex couples to marry. Why the pretense with the consultation? It's a sham, because they have no intention of heeding the objections of those who feel that marriage would no longer be one of the cores of our society.

Marriage has mattered little to me but I felt - and still do - that it was important from the view of protecting children.  My generation always regarded marriage as the only way in which to legitimise children and I, along with others over the centuries, took my responsibilities seriously. If I was of child-bearing age today I would still insist upon marrying before children became part of the family. That's why the institution was borne.

Call me old-fashioned. Maybe being old-fashioned is part of being weary - but I doubt it.


Woodsy42 said...

"Anyone who decides to live together and share their lives should be entitled to the same benefits a married couple enjoy."

I quite agree, but life is never that simple.

For example if two single or widowed elderly siblings want to share a household. Not of course sexually but just to keep each other company and support each other in their old age. Why should they not be allowed to register a type of legal 'team' status to gain the tax and financial status of any other married/partnered couple?

Oldrightie said...

Maybe it's because the gay Mafia have infiltrated the corridors of power in large numbers.

Key bored warrior. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Key bored warrior. said...

Apologies for not spellchecking!

The reason that the GLF were able to make such progress with their fascist agenda in Westminster in the 70s and 80s is that the place is a hotbed of homosexual activities amongst highly placed and powerful men who have left them selves open to blackmail with their activities. The Strangers Bar is said to be the biggest and most popular gay bar in London. The threat to "out" politicians who were living double lives has lead to a lot of corruption and dodgy legislation.

It has become very trendy to be known as "gay." The metropolitan elite have become very corrupt and effete, the moral decay and corruption in Westminster is damaging the UK.

I too am bored to death with the whole rotten edifice. Perhaps if we were less inhibited about such things and more Scandinavian in our views on sexuality, nudity and such we may be in a better place. I really don't know. But there are much much more important topics on our immediate horizons than which end of the pavilion a minister bats from.

The recent muttering of one cardinal O'Brien were quite breathtaking in there hypocrisy, given the history of sexual malpractice and child abuse in the Catholic church hidden deliberately by Rome. Maybe they are trying to put the house in order. But a prolonged period of silence on the subject would be welcome. The COS and the RCC are not best placed to pontificate. (Pun intended.)

Joe Public said...

My personal view is that a "marriage" occurs between a man and a women. Only.

I've no objections to homosexuals of either gender shacking up & even having some of the benefits, and they can call that relationship whatever they like, but their relationship can never be a 'marriage'.

If only politicians had the balls to agree.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

"Who are pulling the strings here in order to change society so radically?"

Oh, "My Scottish Angel of the North" - aka SR, you are not that innocent, are you?

By their control of the media Cameron, MiliE, Clegg and Salmond - yes him too - pull the strings!

They lie to us, they condition us, they control us - and year after year, we vote the bastards back into office.

Are you happy with 'representative democracy'?

Just asking, you understand......

WitteringsfromWitney said...

ps: have linked to this post......

subrosa said...

Great point Woodsy and one the gay lobbby ignore in all their shouting.

subrosa said...

Quite possibly OR. Pity the likes of Age Concern don't have so much influence. There are a lot more of us more mature folk.

subrosa said...

Ah LotF, now it makes sense.

I agree the presbyterian view is very inhibited. I can remember my mother shouting at me when I was a teenager, that I shouldn't be walking around the house in a full length underskirt when my father was present. I actually found that offensive, both to my Dad and myself.

You're right though. The churches aren't really in a position to be judges. They haven't done well in recent decades.

subrosa said...

That's the side of the fence I fall on Joe and because of the continuing pressure I'm becoming stronger in my view.

The gay lobby aren't doing themselves favours, but regardless of public opinion, this will become law. There's no doubt about it.

subrosa said...

No, I'm not happy WfW, although I tried to be objective in the post.

Thanks for the link. :)

Simonp said...

I'm of the opnion its a divide power struggle, in the past religion held great power, now politicians and those in the shadows hold the power, as long as we are all arguing amongst ourselves it keeps everyone from concentrating on what is going on and what they are getting up to

subrosa said...

Well said Simon. These petty matters are a cover for the lack of political substance in matters of importance to us all.

Anonymous said...

Damn it!

I fail to understand. There are big, important bishops and archbishops and these people seem to be unable to defend the perfectly obvious.

The perfectly obvious FACT is that only a heterosexual couple can conceive. The 'Union' is called 'Marriage', and only the union of heterosexual couples can, by definition, be called 'marriage'. Other pairings can be called anything at all, but the word 'marriage' has been taken.

Michele said...

Junican - I totally agree. Marriage is a sacrament of the church; established for the 'procreation of children' - reading the service in whatever religion makes that clear.

There is no reasons why a civil contract cannot offer the same tax relief or recognition of 'paired status' .. but it cannot be 'marriage' by its definition.

I am beginning to think that the driving force behind this push is to humiliate the churches, or else why not demand that mosques allow same sex partnerships?? Well I think we can guess why not, can't we?

BrianSJ said...

The sinister motives are as written here. The consequences, based on history, are dire. Woodsy is right about separating civil partnership in the eyes of the law, and marriage in the eyes of God (the God of your choice - perhaps the gay lobby might wish to re-open the temples of Cybele or whatever). One of AP Herbert's Misleading Cases was about this, concerning the Pratts, who divorced and then re-married after 6:30 in the evening to be married in the eyes of God, but not the law. We need to separate Holy Estates from taxation.

subrosa said...

They do seem to be ineffectual these days Junican. I remember the days when church leaders ensured people understood morals and their value, but they have long gone.

It appears that in England a change in the law would be required. In Scotland I'm not so sure as marriage is defined as a civil matter. Maybe someone will enlighten me.

But marriage for me will always be a contract between a man and a woman.

subrosa said...

The civil partnership here offers that Michele, but that's not good enough for the gay lobbies.

That could be the underlying reason. The churches are pathetic though in their apathy to this, particularly the CoS. No leadership whatsoever.

subrosa said...

That would be a good start Brian.

RMcGeddon said...

There doesn't seem to be a single definition of marriage. Different cultures and religions have different ideas. Polygamy is accepted and supported in UK and muslim culture for example. Western churches only drew up official lines on marriage and civil partnerships relatively recently.
If religious leaders didn't pick and choose what parts of their holy books to champion then we might give them more respect over their strong views on marriage. Rich men 'can't enter the Kingdom of Heaven' yet the catholic church hoards fantastic wealth that could be used to alleviate the suffering of the poor.
'The Lord will provide' is pretty much ignored by Christians who seek as much money as possible to buy as much shiny stuff as possible. Rather than sitting at the roadside with a bowl looking for scraps like Budhists.
So for an atheist like myself I see the whole thing as hypocrisy. Either follow your holy books and stop picking and choosing your favourite bits. Or leave the stage and go back to your weird ceremonies and sky pixie worshiping and leave us alone.

pa_broon74 said...

Yup, what R McGeddon said.

I sort of have a stake in this in that I bat from the other end of the pavilion. I'm not keen on the drum beating gay pride crowds, the pressure groups etc and I couldn't care less about being married, civil or otherwise.

Howwever, it seems to me the gay lobby are being blamed for the on-going hooha and I think thats a wee bit unfair, the outpourings are coming mostly from the churches. (Also, just becuase it needs countered, Michele up above wonders why this is being foisted on one church but not another, naming Islam in particular. For the gazillionth time, its not being foisted on any church, if they don't want to do it, they don't have to.)

I can't belive I'm defending the gay lobby but in this context I can't help it. Take the catholic church, they are doing real harm and have been doing so for decades, in Africa with their missionary work preaching the evils of condom use, meanwhile millions die from HIV AIDS there.

Compare and contrast and you'll find the gay lobby are lightweights when it comes to social damage. (Name me one negative social impact the gay lobby have been demostrably responsible for?)

For me it boils down to this, young people. Young people growing up with homosexuality are bombarded with a sort of passive negativity about their sexual state, this argument and I would say certain religions are a big part of it. That needs to stop and I think SSM is a step toward that.

If that offends the delicate sensibilities of some then so be it, to my knowledge, no one is killing themselves at the thought of two women tying the knot, meanwhile young folk are topping themselves on a daily basis because they are being made to feel so wretched about something they have no control over.

That turned into a rant, I started off by saying I didn't really care when I sort of do.

Oh well.

pa_broon74 said...

I also meant to say, I'm fed up with it as well, its just adding to the general background din of disapproval.

hatfield girl said...

Marriage sets up categories of forbidden relationships. At the moment same gender is a marriage-forbidden relationship; as are relationships (and affinities) up to the fourth degree.

We have altered these rules; I think it is now permitted to marry your deceased wife's sister, even though she stands in the same relationship to you as your own sister - ie the mirroring by affinal groups joined in a marriage has been broken down and an in-law relationship is now a weaker relationship than a kin relationship.

Probably this doesn't matter for some relationships, though it means husband and wife are no longer seen to be one flesh, - but any weakening of the whole weakens the rules protecting the weakest. Children, parents, siblings, nephews and nieces....

If we can marry same gender, the affinally close, our own first cousins, why not our nephews and nieces, our children....anyone at all?

subrosa said...

No there's not an international definition of marriage RM, although I think the definition accepted in the West was/is the union of one man and one woman.

I agree religions have a lot to answer for in the world. I can't say I'm an atheist because I do believe there is a spiritual aspect to life.

subrosa said...

Ah pa_broon. The gay lobby is clever as I'm sure you know. Toss a proposal into the ring and sit back and watch the fireworks.

The churches bite and respond from their pedestals, impressing nobody.

The EU's fingers are all over this. Why do you think the Scottish government and the UK government are promoting it at the same time?

subrosa said...

Another excellent point hatfield girl. It was only in the early part of the 20th century that the law changed here to allow first cousins to wed and slowly, but surely little changes have been made ever since.

As I understand it the reasons for the forbidden relationships was to protect any children of such marriages. It was known even then that the children were far more vulnerable to serious health issues.

As you suggest, I don't think it will end with SSM.

J. R. Tomlin said...

Joe Public said...
My personal view is that a "marriage" occurs between a man and a women. Only.


Then I suggest you only marry a woman. In what way does your opinion give you the right to decide who *I* marry? It doesn't.

You may not want to hear about it any more, Rosie, but it is MY rights that are being stepped on and don't expect me to shut up about it.

J. R. Tomlin said...

I'll go a bit further because it seems to me a little education is needed here.

As long as the LGBT population is treated in this matter as not "worthy" of marriage, children as they become aware of sexuality will be convinced that either the "gays" amonst them are inferior and those who identify as LGBT will be convinced that they are in some way inferior.

Now, those of you who believe this will no doubt think this is a good thing. Those of us who believe that this is simply one way of being human think it is a TERRIBLE thing.

It is NOT being forced on any church. Churches who want to deny the right to marry of LGBT will continue to do so. Marriage will take place only in churches who agree that we have the right, and indeed perhaps the obligation, to marry. There is something so hypocritical about the many people who accuse gays of being promiscuous and then turn around and react with horror when we want to marry that it is actually difficult to address. And it is almost always the SAME people.

Sorry, Rosie, but you are wrong. My love is as valuable as any other human being's and deserves just as much respect and validation.

subrosa said...

Jeanne, you're more than welcome to express your thoughts here and I hope you know that.

Can I ask what manner is the LGBT population being treated? Nobody in these comments has made any mention of inferiority or been insulting in any way.

There's no obligation in the UK for anyone to marry. It's a choice.

You're right. Earlier this evening I was talking to someone quite high up in the CoS (who are said to be liberal) and he said they may follow those in the CoE who say religious representatives may well refuse to perform marriages - not just LGBT but all marriages. How true this is I don't know but it's obviously being discussed within these circles.

What I can't understand is why this issue has become so important when there are other matters involving life and death being ignored. So much money being spent when millions were spent only in 2005 to introduce the civil partnership legislation which brought same sex couples the same legal benefits as opposite sex couple have in marriage.

Everyone's love is valuable. Without love life wouldn't be worth living.

If you read Cranmer's blog you will see, in order to have this legislation a tremendous amount of work will have to be done to change current legislation to bring it into line.

I wouldn't worry too much Jeanne. It's more or less signed, sealed and nearly delivered that the legislation will go through.

It matters not to me if it does or doesn't. I married because I wanted a family and was lucky to have one. Marriage to me ensured the children involved didn't have the stigma of illegitimacy because I'd seen the result of that first hand. I would never consider marrying again but that's my choice.

A civil partnership, if I wanted one, isn't available to me because I'm heterosexual. Such a shame it doesn't allow for the likes of dear friends or siblings who decide to live together without sex being involved. Rather than have a reasonably priced ceremony they have to pay through the nose for lawyers to ensure they protect each other.

J. R. Tomlin said...

Rosie, I find it hard to believe that you think marriage is only about procreation? I certainly don't. If it were people who are to old to have children, who know they can't have children for a medical reason or who simply don't want children wouldn't marry.

Yet I don't see them being attacked here as somehow degrading marriage. Good lord!

What denying marriage to LGBT couples does is say that their love is not, in some way, valid. It IS a life or death issue when gay kids kill themselves because society has convinced them that they have no value. Is IS a life or death issue when society says that gays have no value so they can be bashed or degraded or insulted. By saying that we're not worthy to marry, you're saying that we are not truly human because joining with the person you love has to do with being HUMAN not with procreation.

And you say no one here said gays aren't inferior? What do you think it was talking about "gay mafia"? "The gay lobby is clever as I'm sure you know." You think those comments aren't insulting? I assure you that they FEEL insulting.

I expected better of your blog, Rosie, and I am more disappointed than I can even begin to tell you.

subrosa said...

I see marriage as a vehicle to ensure no child is born illegitimate Jeanne. Nowadays that doesn't appear to matter. The children come first then if the parents choose to, they get married. Cart before the horse, but that's modern society.

I have never stated anyone is of a lesser value than another. Why is it gays feel they are the only section of society who are bashed, degraded or insulted?

You know full well that I'm not saying that.

I reiterate, only 6 or so years ago the law here was changed in order to accommodate the demands of the gay lobby for equality in relationships. The gay lobby agreed on the civil partnership proposals which became law.
There was never any mention of marriage at that time.

Jeanne I have never uttered or written the words 'gay mafia' in my life. They wouldn't occur to me.

One thing I will say - I wish the pensioners lobbies had the same amount of influence over politicians as the gay lobby does. Pensioners are a section of society which is sadly neglected in many ways.

Sorry you feel disappointed. We all can't agree about everything but one thing we should agree on is that everyone should be treated with the same respect, in a fair society.

pa_broon74 said...

A couple of things occur to me, we talk about the gay lobby having unfair influence with politicians but glide blithely over the religious lobby that exists.

In many areas it dwarfs the gay lobby. In society the gay lobby is a gnat in comparison.

Whether its coming from Europe or not is moot, we should be doing it anyway.

There is a fear that if homosexuality is normalised people will all of a sudden become gay, it goes without saying what a nonsense that is.

At least the gay lobby are honest about their intentions, facets of the religious camp tell us they're protecting the moral argument when they're doing nothing of the sort, they're protecting themselves, their hold on society and their archaic views.

I think a fair few straight folk think the gay lobby are doing to annoy them, I'm not sure they are, they're doing it for the purposes of normalisation.

And finally, this idea that this is being debated when other more important things should be in focus. As a detracting argument, its rubbish, unionists (for example) chuck it at the SNP knowing full well other things are being discussed, I know its hard to tell, but politicians aren't amoebas, they can do more than one thing at a time.

I do enjoy a heated debate... Especially it seems, when I don't really care. (Although I do care about the knock on effects, very much so.)

subrosa said...

Whilst I agree with you in part pa_broon, didn't marriage arise from religion?

Like you I don't really care if SSM does come into law. Society has changed radically in my lifetime and we have children living with numerous fathers (or none at all).

pa_broon74 said...

That is probably another post in itself. What did folk do before christianity came along and coalesced(?) the idea of a man and a woman tying the knot.

In that regard, homosexuality has been around for a lot longer than marriage (in the religious sense.)

And it was religion that was responsible for the eventual doing down of that part of life, what came naturally became depraved. Before, it wasn't an issue, the greeks rutted away at anything in a toga, the Macedonians weren't fussy either. In roman times they said 'woman are for making babies, boys are for fun' or words to that effect.

Arguably, even in Jesus' day, same sex relations weren't frowned upon and he didn't necessarily make an issue of it.

Ergo, marriage is unnatural? I mean, I say that but don't mean it completely, it just suits the majority of people.

I think that's why I don't really care about it, its actually moot in terms of human nature. You hear about people being married for 5 or more decades, one wonders whether being married would've made any difference?

Anyway, this is way down the line in posts, we'll leave it at that and I'll stop pestering you.


subrosa said...

You're certainly not pestering me pa_broon and I appreciate your contributions.

Yes, homosexuality is as old as sex itself and marriage was introduced to law to control the masses and provide a platform for the production of future generations.

There is another post in all this. Maybe in the not to distant future I'll get round to writing something and be able to use parts of your comments too.

Related Posts with Thumbnails