You are here

Family values return!

Too much inclusiveness is a bad thing, British homosexualists have discovered. The Lords have voted to open up “civil partnerships,” designed by the Blair government as an exact replica of marriage for same-sex couples, to caregivers and others who live together in stable domestic arrangements. The move has transformed “gay rights” rhetoric in a radically conservative and indeed exclusionary direction. The institution of civil partnership, we are now told, is intended for “relationships [that] are clearly different” from non-traditional couples like a parent and a caregiving child. Expanding the institution to include such unintended people “could lead to questions about the nature of the family unit, blurring the integrity of laws prohibiting sexual relationships [of a kind traditionally considered perverse and unnatural].”

Would it be a good idea to step back and see how these new-found concerns apply to the discussion as a whole?



From the article:

“However, critics of the move said the bid to expand the bill to allow heterosexual family members and others to form partnerships was a ‘fig leaf’ for straightforward homophobic opposition to the bill—for which gay rights campaigners have been campaigning for decades.”

Why does opposition to the bill have to be homophobic? Can’t it be homosexuality-neutral, based on other considerations altogether? Can’t it be homophilic? Can’t a friend of the homosexual community believe the bill not to be in their best interest? I saw the other day where someone claimed Justin Raimondo (said to be homosexual) does not support the homosexual “marriage” movement. Must he therefore be homophobic?

And aren’t the homosexuals referred to in this piece being intolerant? They appear intolerant toward heteros who desire also to benefit from this new concept of civil unions. I thought all forms of “intolerance” were completely beyond the pale, and STRENG VERBOTEN!

“Crossbencher Lord Maginnis, the former Ulster Unionist MP, said the bill had been brought to parliament because of the efforts of a ‘vocal minority in society’ who ‘want to indulge in a relationship which most likely involves unnatural sexual practices.’ “

In Canada, couldn’t a private individual without parliamentary protections of speech be criminally prosecuted for calling the sexual practices homosexuals are known to engage in “unnatural”?

“Home Office minister, Lady Scotland, warned that the amendment could turn the clock back to the 1930s […].”

Is that all? Can’t we get it turned back to—let’s say—the 1930s BC? (Of course it’s the left whose policies keep having the effect of retarding all progress and turning the clock back, preventing their opponents—preventing our side—from making much true progress.)

“Opening up such a formal legal relationship to family members could lead to questions about the nature of the family unit, blurring the integrity of laws prohibiting sexual relationships within families.”

Make no mistake: regardless of what questions be raised as a result of this affair, the left has next on its agenda the legitimating of incest, among other “progressive” goals.