 |
| Looks like that's 'gay marriage' and abortion covered then... |
If you can, come. If you can't, pray for us and pray for the lady herself. That reminds me, I really should ask her a question about that Green Councillor who was shown the door for not signing up to the marriage that is not.
Word on the street, or rather, in The Argus, is that Caroline Lucas could see her electoral situation change dramatically with the redrawing of constituency boundaries. Will this make any difference to Caroline's voting decision when it comes to it? Likely not. But as sure as we're living in a quasi-democracy, I'll be making my views along with others to Caroline on this political potato - a potato that's so hot, it might just as well have come from the lowest pits of Hell.
Matthew Parris, of relic-phobia fame, has weighed into the 'gay marriage' debate with some choice words for those opposing the proposals. Here are some quotes, one or two of which are revealing. So, let's examine them...
“I do understand people’s discomfort about the use of language. When people are told they are to use a word in a different way, it makes them uncomfortable for reasons that George Orwell chronicled so well. Marriage to someone of my generation means a man and woman, and in 20 years’ time, it won’t. To those of us caught on the cusp there’s a little adjustment needed.”
A little adjustment, indeed! To put it mildly! George Orwell did chronicle, very well, the future society that overturns the English language in order to put entirely new constructions upon the meanings or definitions of words, in order to build an entirely new vision of society. If only Mr Parris would be a bit more forthcoming with his thoughts on where all this could potentially lead. It's just a 'little adjustment', like the probable sacking of those teachers unable to cope with teaching homosexuality to children, those parents unable to allow their children to be taught it, those marriage registrars unable to preside over 'gay weddings', those Churchmen unable to bring themselves to demonstrate 'equality' and those husbands and wives who will no longer be known as such, but, instead, as gender neutral 'parties to a marriage'.
 |
| Matthew Parris searching for '1984' |
The Evening Standard, from whence I garner this story, goes on to say:
'Indeed, had David Cameron asked Parris — which he did not — whether he should support gay marriage, “I’d have said, ‘It’s a good thing to do but I wouldn’t put it at the top of your priorities’.” Since then, Cameron’s resolve has, as Parris puts it, “brought a lot of the real nasties out of the woodwork, so the line-up is now between the forces of light and the forces of darkness”.'
Might this man be just a little prejudiced against the people who are but also those who aren't in the media spotlight, who might not agree with 'same-sex marriage'? Who are the forces of light and who are the forces of darkness? Talk about polarising debate. Can you guess who is 'good' and who is 'bad'? The 'nasties' are all religious types (especially relic hunters and those who believe in the 'Lux mundi') and people who hold onto a traditional (now millennia old) view of marriage. The good are those 'luvvies', the enlightened beings drawing us into an age in which a man can marry a man because 'it's only fair' and get that 'upgrade' he always wanted.
'Upgrade'? I hear you cry. Why, indeed! Mr Parris says that, despite the fact that he is happily civilly partnered to his chap, that when the option becomes available, he is hoping for an 'upgrade' to marriage. Could it be that this man does not have a realistic notion of what marriage is? Mr Parris, if marriage is something so special and wonderful that you desire to obtain it by the Government's irresponsible theft of the institution itself, then why does your language suggest it to be something rather cheap and unimportant - like you'd be obtaining something that would make as much difference to your life as getting a nicer seat with better leg room on a British Airways flight to one of your second, third or fourth homes?
'Parris’s long-term partner is Julian Glover, a former Guardian journalist who briefly wrote speeches for Cameron and is now a special adviser at the Department for Transport. Asked if he and Glover, who became civil partners in 2006, will avail themselves if marriage becomes an option, Parris says they will indeed “probably get an upgrade”.'
Despite the fact that Mr Parris is convinced that none of the opposition to these careless whispers from the State care about marriage, but only about persecuting homosexuals, Mr Parris makes it plain how shallow and artificial is his own view of the institution he believes will bring he and his partner the ultimate happiness that comes from the 'status' of marriage. Part of the reason for this, of course, is that the campaign for 'gay marriage' is coming from an elite who believe that status and honour is what life is all about. It must be, because having a certificate from your local Council registry office on your wall in your luxury pad overlooking a 270 degree view of the Thames and showing it to your celebrity friends with a glass of bubbly is what life's all about. Back in the real world, on 'ground zero' however, it's pretty clear that life under the 'great leap forward' looks a lot more like Orwell's vision, than it does Parris's London.
 |
| It's upgrade time! |
If homosexuality made homosexuals happy, you'd be happy. You'd be happy with what you have and have enough good will to spare people involved in relationships of opposite genders the institution that belongs solely to their unique and complementary relationship and to the exclusion of all other kinds of relationship. If homosexuality made homosexuals happy, you'd be happy with your man and your civil partnership and find time to defend the institution of marriage against this absurd attack while you're at it. You're not, so you want government, Church and society to tell you that homosexuality makes them happy so that you'll feel more happy about it - so happy, indeed, that all will call same-sex relationships the stuff of marriage. That way, you and your partner will be 'happily' married despite the fact you're both of the same gender and cannot crown your relationship with your own biological children and despite the fact that people will only be happy because the Government has drawn smiles in permanent ink on their faces.
And in your search for personal happiness, for that 'upgrade' that a few years ago you didn't think much bothered you at all, you are perfectly willing to allow the totalitarian nightmare envisioned by a writer you rightfully admire to wreak havoc upon those many men, women, families and children operating in normal society and with whom you no longer have much contact because you're minted. You are prepared to see children receive an immoral education designed to destroy their innocence and encourage sexual experimentation, to see the enactment of legislation that will criminalise people for simply holding onto their principles in their chosen field of work and to see all opposition to your poisonous gay liberation creed in the United Kingdom overturned and extinguished overnight, despite being a 'Conservative'. In your hatred of those you deem to be 'nasties', you're happy to see, yes, even homosexuals (because I and many homosexuals who are not famous don't believe the 'gay marriage' propaganda) punished for not accepting the 'cultural revolution'.
The reality of gay liberation is that it comes at a price. That price is the freedom of all - a price far greater, I believe, than the cost of an 'upgrade' and of infinitely greater worth. Mr Parris believes it would really be a terrible 'betrayal' if Mr Cameron dropped this 'gay marriage' proposal. He doesn't go onto say of whom it would be a betrayal. The people of the United Kingdom? Himself? The established Church? Libertarians? The gay community? Perhaps, Mr Parris treats all these groups as if they were the same thing, but remember it's just a 'little adjustment' that'll be well worth it in 20 years, rather like the killing of millions under Soviet rule would have been worth the 'little adjustment' in Eric Hobsbawm's eyes, had it 'all worked out well in the end.' Of Mr Cameron and his 'proposal', he says...
"I would bet a considerable sum of money on his persisting with it.”
Well, being a man with a considerable sum of money who is civilly partnered to his former speech writer, I suppose you would. Perhaps, with your winnings, should your bet be successful, you can fund lawyers for those Christians and other 'nasties' who'll be sacrificed for your 'upgrade'. Marriage is sacred, Mr Parris. Worth preserving, too, is the freedom and liberty of the citizens of this country, but, hey, what do the 'forces of darkness' know?
Come the revolution, I guess you'll still have a job, mind because if history tells us one thing, it's that only the 'forces of light' keep employment right, status, their lives and rank in revolutions. As you survey London and look down from your 270 degree view flat overlooking the Thames after that revolution, spare a thought for those who have not signed up to the State Credo and show some respect for their sacred consciences, even if, like so many, we Catholics too, you find respecting your own to be a profoundly painful challenge. We may not see you in Room 101, though you may wish to see us there. If God should be so kind as to grant us Heaven, we wish to see you there. That's how nasty we really are.
'And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.' (Gospel of St John 1:15)
In an act of unfathomably bigoted spitefulness, this 'nasty' agitator for the 'forces of darkness' will light a candle for you after the Traditional Latin Mass tomorrow night.
No comments:
Post a Comment