Britannia Radio

On the subject of  Re: can anybody please explain the urgency of gay marriage?," BD

Sorry but the first statement is incorrect. There is no legal or constitutional reason why homosexuality is wrong. One might say its wrong because of religion but thankfully that's not relevant in a modern secular society where universal rules apply.

Second by not allowing two people the same rights as any other couple is outright discrimination. And it makes perfect sense to me. It's a matter of pride that Britain has taken the lead in recognising these rights. Just like we did with recognising women's right to vote to equal gender rights to drafting the universal declaration of human rights etc etc.

OK, if you want to engage on this:

1. Homosexuality is wrong from a religious perspective. That is not, per se, a reason for either advocating or denying it in a secular context
(you'll note that I didn't do either in my original response to A

2. Secular marriage (so-called 'common law marriage' and other arrangements too) has been acknowledged in this country for many centuries, going back to the middle ages. The concept has *always* been a man and woman in a long-term relationship, with the expectation of having children and bringing them up.

3. Regarding children, the statistics are undeniable: children benefit from being raised in traditionally British-style, monogamous, long-term marriages. Every sociological study that's been done (pretty much) shows that there are poorer outcomes for children raised in other arrangements, including by couples who are married and divorce, unmarried couples, single parents from the outset, same-gender parents, communes, etc.

The disadvantages to children include:

o lower achievement academically (for a given IQ), o poorer social skills, o increased propensity to criminality, o poorer mental health*, o less successful relationships of their own (in adult life)

That's pretty much in any way you can measure the success or otherwise of parenting. I'd emphasize here that, AIUI, these studies control for other factors properly (otherwise they wouldn't have academic credibility), although I'm healthily cynical about Sociology generally!

4. Existing laws on civil partnerships gave the same rights to homosexuals as to heterosexuals, from the perspective of legal status in long-term relationships. Crucially, AS FAR AS SECULAR SOCIETY IS CONCERNED, a civil partnership is marriage in all but name. Even before civil partnerships, it was possible to set up legal structures giving the equivalence of marriage, for example inheritance, joint ownership of assets, etc.

5. Unfortunately, unlike the constitutional protection in the USA, there is no right to free speech here, merely custom and practice. For practical purposes we live in an oligarchy, one in which the constitution was overthrown by quiet revolution thirty years ago (on our accession to the Common Market/EU).

There are sufficient laws on the statute book now to prosecute people like me, merely for speaking out in public views held privately, for example about the integrity or otherwise of the EU and its officials. It's not done wholesale, not because of any fear of public outcry, but because doing so on a large scale would be hugely inconvenient to the authorities and impractical.

Legal sanctions ARE, however, applied against free speech on a daily basis, including against people who speak up out of religious conviction. Increasingly, Christians in particular are finding that state control trumps religious conviction, in a way that hasn't happened since the Roman invasion in 43 AD**. Recent examples include guest house owners, marriage counsellors, nurses, and so on, even our piano tuner, who received a police caution for preaching a Christian message in a local shopping area.

Although these people are prosecuted, you'll struggle to find examples of them behaving aggressively or threateningly in any way. In the majority of cases, the root cause issue has been that the authorities are becoming radically anti-Christian, arguably actively pursuing an agenda against traditional evangelical Christian thought and behaviour, in collaboration with militant, anti-Christian homosexual groups.

6. The Church of England has certain special-status issues arising from this. Firstly, IIRC, the Church, for historical reasons, places a de facto obligation on vicars to marry parishioners. They have right of refusal at present, for example in circumstances where it is evident the couple merely wants the appearance of a church wedding but without the Christian commitment. On this, secular law has been silent. Until now.

Now, because English law is 'developed' by case law, and external laws such as the European Convention on Human Rights also apply, the development of this law will be a REQUIREMENT*** on vicars to 'marry' homosexual couples, religious conviction (of them and their parishioners) notwithstanding. It may also place a new obligation on nonconformist churches to do this, too, a situation which directly conflicts with many nonconformist churches' doctrine and statements of belief.

7.
. . .

So to pull these threads together:

o This new law is NOT about equality for homosexuals under law. They already have that, and have done so for considerable time.

o Marriage has never, ever, probably throughout human history, been defined as merely 'a sexual partnership between two people.' This law represents a fundamental change in meaning. It's being enacted despite public disagreement, and without public consent. Opinion polls have varied, however the larger ones are consistent: the British people do NOT want this change made.

o The change in the law does not change the effective status of homosexual relationships. The ONLY thing it DOES change is the legal right of Christians NOT to religiously recognise them. This is secular law forcing obedience, against religious conviction.

o Going back to traditional marriage: anything that encourages other arrangements for bringing-up children must surely be bad law. It's like abolishing the MOT test for cars, merely because people prefer not to pay to maintain them - third parties will get hurt!

Thus it is very bad law, more so in a society that claims to be tolerant of opinion and belief - this proves the reverse: a tyranny of the militantly secular and anti-Christian in paricular.

And I come back to my original statement. There appears to be a global move towards this, and I believe it is one more step to encourage societal breakdown in previously-Christian countries. We have historical comparisons: Communist states, such as post-revolutionary Russia, Albania and Romania, North Korea and even Israeli Kibbutzim, have all tried to undermine traditional families, ultimately to their detriment.

I think I know why it's happening globally, as I said, but that doesn't mean I want it, nor believe it to be right.

S.

------------------------

* Personally, I'm not convinced of this, but it is claimed.

** There is evidence that Christianity was established amongst some Celtic tribes prior to the Roman invasion, probably brought to the British Isles by Phoenician traders.

*** I'm well aware Cameron claimed this was not so in the media. Every legal opinion I've seen (including on the BBC) has said he is wrong.
--
S