Posted on 03/13/2012 5:54:11 PM PDT by Stoat
Most people thought they knew what marriage meant, namely the union of a man and a woman. In 2004, when the Civil Partnership Act was passed to provide legal protections for homosexual partnerships, Parliament was led to believe by the government of the day that this did not affect the established institution of marriage. But barely eight years later, political fashion has changed.
More recently, though, familiar words such as “husband and wife” and “mother and father” are disappearing from the statute books in the small minority of countries that have begun the experiment in social engineering.
(edit)
In Canada, since same-sex marriage was brought in, the courts have ruled that a child can legally have three parents, and in the province of British Columbia serious attempts have been made to legalise polygamy. After all, if you can abolish the most important pre-condition of marriage – namely that it requires a person of each sex – why should you be able to retain other pre-conditions, such as limiting it to only two people?
In the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage was introduced in 2001, “cohabitation agreements” have been used to give three-way relationships a measure of legal recognition. It is even being advocated as the next step over here. One Guardian writer, Martin Robbins, recently responded to these concerns by arguing “What’s wrong with polygamy?” He went on: “It seems to me that a child brought up by three loving parents would have some quite big economic advantages…”
(edit)
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
And homosexuals 'need' Social Security benefits far less than healthy people, since their net worth is typically very high. Children and true families are rather expensive.
2-homosexual adoption
hard to imagine this being helpful
Indeed, and if you'll scroll to Manc's essential post at #10 here, you'll see how very badly it can end up. Sure, suicides occur in healthy families as well, but when you start out with people who are mentally ill, the results are more likely to be bad.
3-same as every other lib agenda.
increase the size of government and
decrease the liberty of normal people
I can't think of a single lib agenda item that 'actually' increases liberties for normal, sane, healthy people.
You're quite welcome :-) Your perspective is always sincerely appreciated.
I heard that the Catholic church is fighting this over there which is good but I bet if the muslims, Hindu’s, Sikh’s etc got on board then the marriage will stay normal.
Seems the left is ready for a show down within itself.
Leftists have become adept at performing all manner of philosophical calisthenics when trying to justify their support for wildly differing hate groups, violent 'religions' , mentally ill and criminal perspectives. At the end of the day, the only thing that will ultimately matter is whether or not the group or perspective in question is a threat to Western civilization. If it is, then they'll have the Left's unending and enthusiastic support.
Oh and having been raised in foster homes then I can say that no kid is asking to be put into a home with two men or two women and I know of one kid who killed himself due tot he social services leaving a boy with a mentally sick homosexual woman
How terribly sad, and how entirely preventable and meaningless an end for this boy. Every life the Left touches, it ultimately destroys.
I have been saying this for years. If there is nothing special about marriage being between a man and a woman; then, what is so damned special about the number 2?
Indeed, and it becomes entirely reasonable to ask what is so special about limiting 'marriage' to a certain species as well. The raving lunatics who find themselves romantically drawn to horses, cows and goats are engaging in the same level of biological irrelevance as a homosexual one.
I'm guessing that PM Cameron is only "Conservative" to the Left and the media. During the run-up to the last election, I remember 'many' Conservatives and others speaking about how very non-Conservative Cameron has been on many issues.
Just as is done here in the USA, conservatives in the UK are lectured by the Left and even those in their own parties that they must accept "conservatives" with liberal track records because they are supposedly the only ones who are electable.
Cameron was such a compromise candidate, but I would suggest that even with all of his faults he is still not as far to the Left as Brown or Blair.
Ouch brother.
Sounds like your mate got the sh*tty end of the stick. We fostered four kids when our own were grown - the sudden quiet when they went to uni was un-nerving. I know it isn’t the same as being with your parents, but we tried to give them a loving home, no matter how screwed up they were. (two of them really were screwed up).
You are right of course, the Church is fighting this tooth and nail, but without the help of the CoE, it isn’t going to win.
It is funny that the folks that believe in evolution and natural selection also think homosexuality is natural. It is not a practice that is conducive to survival of a species.
For that matter, there’s no reason to presuppose a sexual component to new marriage. As the definition of marriage evolves, I will be planning for the day when I will enter into a “new” marriage with my children. This is how I will thwart the government claim on my estate, and my children and grand-children will be eligible to claim social security survivor benefits upon my death..
BFL (first time I’ve done that).
Try 600 million years. Unbroken line of sexual reproduction among the higher forms since the Proterozoic (no fossil record worth mentioning for the evolved forms before 500 million years).
The technical word is "paraphilia" and denotes a disordered attraction or orientation.
Want to get a queer fighting mad? Just refer to his favorite perversion (arguendo homosexuality, for our purposes) as a "paraphilia". He'll shoot back that homosexuality is "normal", and maybe even have the brass to cite the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).
If he does that, ask him "Which one? The real one that was written before 1972, or the one you queers rewrote for your pleasure in 1973, after your coup d'etat takeover of the American Psychiatric Association?"
That should send him over the moon -- because it's true.
Because so many of them were "compromised" while in preparatory schools (Eton) and university (Oxbridge)?
An enterprising Fleet Street newsie, about five years ago, wrote an article about the prevalence of homosexuality in the upper reaches of the British upper class. You never saw a newspaper get turned around so fast in your life. Article spiked, suppressed, writer ..... not heard from lately.
Gorillas are at the other end of that situation ~ you have one male with a harem of females.
Humans are in the middle ~ one man and one woman ~ with some statistical outliers.
Folks who know about evolutionary processes don’t see homosexuality as natural. It’s a biological dead end.
‘Europeans, Brits in particular are pretty much responsible for the proliferation of male homosexuality over the last 800 hundred years.’
Hmmm, uh-huh, yeah, whatever.
‘Hang out at Eton, it’s worse than the Catholic Seminary’s.’
Which 0.000000000..........1 of all Britons have ever gone to.
‘They will be part of the Caliphate soon.’
Course we will. Ah, the dhimmi masturbatory fantasy that never stops giving.
Now run along and see our white, upper class, Anglo-Scottish-Welsh-Portuguese-Jewish prime minister be the guest of YOUR President with the middle name of Hussein.
I had composed an intelligent response to you, but I changed my mind.
Dhimmi’s and mastubatory? Really?
Usually liberals revert to name calling.
Perhaps Dave and Barky wanted to have a boy date at the NCAA?
lol
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.