GAY RIGHTS / GAY MARRIAGE. WHERE DOES TOLERENCE BEGIN AND END

AN EMOTIONAL POT.

To quote one PIERS MORGAN, now a so called celebrity , on both sides of the Atlantic, "The whole issue of gay rights and gay marriage in particular is a hot topic on both sides of the Atlantic". Now I have a problem with Mr Morgan, as I dislike him, and the sort of shallow society he wallows in, intensely but at the same time, I greatly enjoy reading his weekly Magazine column. Like, it seems the whole "Gay" element, I want my cake as well as eating it. Mind you admitting to double standards would be right up the Morgan street.

However, as I say, he does thought provoke and provides amusing and also stimulating copy on most occasions.. This week he has centred on the issue of the Gay community and their latest campaign, which is of course, the right to be married in the same way as Heterosexual couples. These of course are the same group who, a decade or so ago were campaigning for "Civil Partnerships" and telling us all that under no circumstances would they wish for married status. I thought then, they were somewhat enlightened, given that originally a marriage was effectually an ownership contract in favour of male over female. Of course, I was wrong for the Gay community is like all others, for as soon as it gets what it wants, it decides it wants something else. Yes, those now described as "Gays" are ,sadly, just human beings with same frailties as all others. No discrimination there.

Morgan, now established on American TV, tells us, " 49% OF AMERICANS NOW SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE WITH 40% OPPOSED". This reverses, apparently, the position in 2009. so 9% in 3 years have altered their viewpoint. Carried on this way, by 2030, the whole of America will support the concept ! Unlikely, but food for thought.

THE RIGHT TO OPPOSE.

My opposition to the current fashion for climbing on the gay bandwagon is based not on prejudice but against the stridency and demands that they make on the rest of us. From the outraged screams of the High Priestesses of Feminism to the insidious use of Television in particular, to lose no opportunity in pressing new cases for establishing a form of supremacy, there are no limits to this seemingly unstoppable march to total supremacy. Sadly for this generation of their leaders, they have yet to learn that the pendelum never stops where you want it and has a nasty habit of swinging back to hit you in the face. Put simply, I see an eventual backlash , not a continuation to 100% agreement with all things gay.

So too ,according to Morgan, does an actor called Kirk Cameron. I have no idea who Mr Cameron is but apparently he appeared on Morgan"s TV show and say where he stood on homosexuality, " i think it is unnatural, detrimental and ultimately destructive to the foundations of civilisation." Not my own views let me state here and now, but at the same time I defend the right of Mr Cameron, when asked, to say what he truly believes. For this he has again to quote Morgan, been subject to "blind fury" That is a brilliant phrase for truly the fury expressed is totally blind. It would be a poor world if we all thought the same on all issues. I defend the right to oppose on all issues in a fit and proper way and to act as some have done towards Cameron, puts them in league with those running oppressive regimes in all parts of the world. The gay community would do well to accept that not all the human race wish to join their club and have the right to say so just as strongly as those who do promote the benefits of membership.

TOLERANCE IS A TWO WAY STREET.

In 1965, I took a school trip to Austria to ski. One of my charges was an eccentric youth and the daughter of the Hotel Manager asked me if he was gay. I was 25 years of age and it was the first time I had heard the word and did not have a clue as to what she meant. Contrast that with today, where Primary Schools are advised to introduce the subject to children below 10 years and TV programmes in both daytime and early evening are pretty explicit in showing same sex activity and relationships. Thus far has the pendelum swung that to oppose such things brings down vitriol in exactly the same way from the gay community that, those who were gay years ago had to endure from others. "CONFUSION, ACRIMONY AND MUTUAL DISRESPECT". again the words of Morgan abound, and neither set of protagonists seems to understand, or wish to understand one jot of any point of view expressed that does not fully agree with their own.

The Catholic Church, not usually high on my list of exemplary institutions, has fully the right to eschew the concept of gay marriage and to their credit have put their views over in a clear and largely, unemotional manner. O n the other side, it seems right to me that those who are born with a makeup different to the rest, subject at all times to there being at sometime irrefutable factual scientific evidence that this is the case, should be free from unfair discrimination as they have been in the past and still encounter today in certain areas. Morgan is sure that gay people are born and not made. I am less certain. I do believe, without a shred of evidence to support me, that some are, but others, particularly today are effectively stampeded into it by pressure from all sorts of exposures. The more cynical then become bi-sexual, a true case of having the cake and eating it.

Tolerance should be a two way street and currently the gay lobby would do well to remember that. Society has moved a long way in 50 years and the corollary to that is that it could just as easily return to former and unwelcome mores in the same time if a balance is not struck. The Oxford Dictionary classifies marriage thus, " a condition of man and woman living together legally united for the purpose of living together" Note, no Biblical reference at all. A civil partnership fulfills that criteria, so it seems but logic to me for the Churches to go on doing what they have done for centuries and for the State to make, as it has already done so, provision for a legal contract between those of the same gender to live together in like manner.. Accept that and you do understand that Tolerance is indeed a two way street. Reject it and beware lest you get what you wish for.

More by this Author


Comments 3 comments

Cre8tor profile image

Cre8tor 4 years ago from Ohio

I agree with much of this. I wrote a series about Gay Marriage you may be interested in but the fact remains, the word "marriage" is the underlying problem...not the union. I wonder too if gays would be agreeable to such union without the word marriage being used if it came with the same benefits as a straight marriage. The problem is now, civil marriage only receives minimal benefits of marriage and is at the state level. Other states do not have to recognize the union nor does the federal government...in the U.S. You're absolutely right...we've come a long way over time but I still say that gay porn, gay strip clubs, and gay everything else is legal while gay marriage is not because gay marriage offers no financial gain...only loss. If it offered a profit, I believe it would've been legalized long ago.


B R Casteel profile image

B R Casteel 4 years ago from Camano Island

Very good article. A point of view that few want to agree with.


j w adams 4 years ago from Essex/ Alanya/ Hurghada Author

Thank you for your kind comment. I agree that in current times it is regarded almost as heresay to put forward anything that does not agree with every issue the gay community decides is right for all. I just want to say that the rest of us have rights as well and that the way forward is simply to understand principles of co-existance. I fear we are a long way off that currently.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working