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