David Cameron.
Posted on 09/19/2011 8:30:36 AM PDT by massmike
Britain’s coalition government is aiming to legalize same-sex “marriage” before the next federal election in 2015, announced Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone on Saturday. The move comes after the “personal intervention” of Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, reports the U.K.’s Daily Mail.
Same-sex couples in Britain have been able to access comparable benefits to married couples since 2005 when the country legalized same-sex “civil partnerships.” The government’s latest effort would focus strictly on changing the perennial definition of marriage.
Mike Judge, head of communications for The Christian Institute, warned that the change will have vast implications for British society, particularly in schools, such as have been experienced in every jurisdiction where same-sex “marriage” has been legalized.
“If marriage can be redefined for homosexual marriage, why not redefine it to allow polygamy?” he asked. “Canada has legalised homosexual marriage, and litigation is now underway in one Canadian province to legalise polygamy.”
Despite the government’s pledge, homosexual activists are complaining that the government has not gone far enough.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
David Cameron.
homosexual agenda ping
The statists and homosexualists love that many have been conditioned to think the state defines marriage, that way they accept whatever the state says about marriage, including impossibilities like “gay marriage”. Same thing with education and charity. It gives the state tremendous control of the culture.
Freegards
GAHH!!!!
And these, my FRiends, are supposed to be Conservative!
Civil partnerships, well, fine. I don’t like it, but I also don’t give a rats what people get up to in the privacy of their own homes.
But redefining marriage is simply not acceptable. It is going to provoke not only legal challenges, but a huge constitutional crisis, as the Queen as head of the church will simply refuse Royal Assent. People forget she still has that right and duty as protector of the faith.
and plans to make it mandatory by 2020.
Another Western Civilization-destroying move brought to you by the UK! The UK - leading the West into the abyss of destruction one policy decision at a time!
The Conservative Party hasn’t been Conservative for a long time. The UKIP is the closest thing Britain has.
Once the Islamics take over, they'll round up and kill the homosexuals.
Question: Will there be an English Government in 2015? What will the Sharia Law people say to this idea? There just might be better things to worry about than this in 2015—Like World WAR!
Indeed. Where have all the Churchills and Thatchers gone?
All the British need to do is look across the Atlantic Ocean to Canada where Gay Marriage was legalized years ago and since then Canada has been in an economic, social, spiritual and political downward spiral.
They can give government recognition to a relationship between a toaster and a dalmatian if they want, but that won’t make it a marriage either.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
People can prate about "statists" all they want but the truth and the fact of the matter is that legalizing same sex marriage is legislating immorality. When the government forces the acceptance of immorality on everyone, the government is now an agent of extreme evil. If mentally ill sex perverts ply their vice in privacy, no one knows or cares. But forcing the entire population to recognize such vice - pretending that perverse sexual gratification is the same as marriage - is a great evil.
Marriage has been legally binding for hundreds if not thousands of years. That does not mean "looking to the state to define marriage". But for the goverment to force perversion as though it were marriage is forcing everyone to participate in helping evil. People have been punished for not participating, and it will only get worse.
Regarding civil unions, that's another nonsense. Any contracts two people want to make, can already be done legally. The purpose of homosexual civil unions was so they could then whine "But we want MARRIAGE! The real thing, not this second class citizen stuff!". And this has been proven true - where ever they got "civil unions", they immediately whined for "marriage".
And why do mentally ill sex perverts want marriage? Very simple answer, and they say it in their owns words - to destroy the natural family and natural marriage, and created a revolution in society.
“People can prate about “statists” all they want but the truth and the fact of the matter is that legalizing same sex marriage is legislating immorality.”
Was this addressed to me, FRiend? I’m the only one that used that word. Seeems like a pretty reasonable thing to “prate about” on a conservative forum in any case.
“That does not mean “looking to the state to define marriage”.
Well, I know what the state would say about it, and I know whay my faith says about it too. The state loves that many have been conditioned to think marriage comes from it. Just like they love that many have been conditioned to think that education and charity come from it. And the homosexualists love that the state can punish those who disagree with their ever devolving take on marriage.
Freegards
I have lost every bit of tolerance with Libertarians both large L and small.
I refuse to even debate with any, and you’re the nicest one.
People who don’t want the gov forcing faggot “marriage” down our throats are not statists nor do we look to the “state” to define marriage. It’s a question of keeping the normal, natural, God-made status quo.
Governments of whatever level have been recognizing marriage since time immemorial and this does not mean they defined marraige. Means they recognized the legitimate union of man and wife and with that recognition came legal or legitimate socially defined and regocnized rights and responsibilities. This is as it should be and has always been since human civilization began. This is not Statism, Nanny Governmentism, or any ism. It is the state recognition of Natural Law.
I apologize if I used a term that seemed insulting. I consider you a good freeper but your libertarianism is silly and utopian and doesn’t do anyone a darn bit of good.
I’m so sick of libertarianism large L and small that I cannot express how sick. It merely helps and encourages the tendency towards hedonism, anarchy and these usher in totalitarianism.
Where the Libertarian position on same sex marriage falls apart is that the leftist plan for same sex marriage includes a plan to control religious believe and teaching against homosexuality along with controlling speech, interfering with religious belief, it’s thought control.
I don’t see how that fits into the concept of Libertarianism.
LIbertarianism is merely the ultra kook anarchy hedonism/false utopian fringe of the left. It’s about time people woke up and smelled the methane.
“People who don’t want the gov forcing faggot “marriage” down our throats are not statists nor do we look to the “state” to define marriage. It’s a question of keeping the normal, natural, God-made status quo.”
Of course not. Freepers are a cut above the masses, that may sound elitist but it is generally true. But many have been conditioned to think that marriage comes from the state instead of their faith. If you think this isn’t the case, Then I reckon we disagree.
“It is the state recognition of Natural Law.”
Sure. But it hasn’t been doing that for a long time. It has usurped the role of faith, at least in recent times, just like it has with education and charity.
“I consider you a good freeper but your libertarianism is silly and utopian and doesn’t do anyone a darn bit of good.”
I consider you a good Freeper too, and appreciate all the stuff you post about the homosexualist agenda. I have added the keyword “homosexualagenda” to many threads concerning it, and am thankful you and others take care of a ping list for it. I definately think the homosexual agenda is real, a weapon used by marxists.
I don’t think the state is ever going to remove itself from the institution. I do think that marriage would be better off if it did, because I know that the statists and homosexualists are going to use that involvement to punish folks who don’t buy the impossibility of “gay marriage”.
I voted for the marriage amendment in my state. I would do so again. But I will never agree that wanting folks to define marriage with their faith is libertarianism of any stripe. The big L’s are mostly pro-gay marriage as far as I can see, which is completely inconsistant with their usual views as I understand them anyhow, because of the gubberment’s power to punish those who don’t buy into the sham.
And a piece of paper from the state isn’t the deciding factor of determining if two people are married. Should the state recognize marriage? Probably, it would be fine in an utopia with no statists and homosexualists who will twist that recognition into socialist control of the culture.
Freegards
Thank you for your reply -
Libertarianism is utopian because it would only work in a society of people who all voluntarily choose to act in a moral way. Even a small percentage of non-morally compliant people would wreck it all. And most libertarians really are into their vices. A libertarian society with people indulging in the vices they want legalized would quickly turn into a veritable hell on earth.
IOW it would only work if fallen human nature were not what it is...
On this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2779001/posts
The Republican Party Must Never Endorse Same Sex Marriage
self | September 15, 2011 | little jeremiah
I detail some of the LP’s offficial platform on moral issues, as well as some other stuff like quotes from wise men that some may find useful. Unfortuantely my lack of formatting ability cuts down the readability.
Thanks. I will look at it, but please remember I don’t consider myself any sort of libertarian.
FReegards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.