Skip to main content

Homosexual marriages (should not be) given the 'aye' in Parliament

Party leaders at Westminster have hailed the significance of the backing for same-sex marriage in England and Wales in a key Commons vote.
Prime Minister David Cameron said Tuesday's vote had been "an important step forward" and Labour leader Ed Miliband called it a "proud day".
MPs voted in favour of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill by 400 to 175, a majority of 225.
- bbc: homosexual marriages: party leaders hail vote

I have no problem with homosexuals getting it on with each other, but i don't agree that they should have the right to get married as that validates such relationships as natural, which it certainly is not.

The quest for freedom should make advances against what we are accustomed to which might inhibit the full expression of our potentials, but this should not include advances against what is natural.  Events such as these just serves to further humanity in its preoccupation with preference as opposed to reason.

Some might even argue that it is more natural for a man to marry a girl who comes of biological age even if she is not of legal age, than for a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry a woman whom are of legal age as that is biologically not natural.  Which is right and which isn't?  If legality is supposed to determine all that is right and alright, then we live under the tyranny of the appetites of the day rather than what is reasonable and right.



  1. We can't redefine marriage. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, has been historically so and will remain so. This is the basic requirement. If you take that basic requirement away, what you are left with is not marriage.


Post a Comment

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…