|Red Ed and Red Ken playing snooker at a youth club. No, really...|
Today, Ed Balls has come out in favour of it and into the bargain outed his anonymous gay uncle. Yet, you don't have to be an intellectual rigorist to spot some pretty glaring inconsistencies in Ed's reasoning.
Ed maintains that he 'believes' that his uncle, who never got the chance to have a Civil Partnership with his gay lover, because he died, would have wanted to be married to the chap with whom he shared his life. How well did Ed know this uncle? We're not sure, but the fact that Ed says he 'believes' he would have wanted this, even though he clearly doesn't know for sure, means we'll never know whether the gay uncle would have wanted a gay marriage or, indeed, not.
Then, to make his reasoning even more ridiculous, he says that he wants the name of the uncle to be anonymous in order to respect his privacy. This would suggest that, in some way, either the uncle or others in the family would not want this fact over his sexuality to be revealed.
So, while playing to the gay gallery, Ed makes the fatal mistake of refusing to name the individual because either the uncle himself or the family would rather the individual's sexuality wasn't made public. The gay community, of course, would hate that, because it would suggest that there is some kind of stigma or shame involved in being a homosexual. He's wheeled out his gay uncle but has decided to keep uncle in the closet. Apparently, Ed makes it plain that all the family were just fine about the man's sexuality, but at the same time, wants his sexuality to be private. Yet, we've been led to believe, that homosexuality is a) as natural as water flowing from Buxton springs, b) something to be celebrated and publicly so, and c) so worthy of public celebration, status and expression that marriage should itself be redefined, in order to incorporate the love that dare not keep quiet for a moment, on the statute book to the extent that bits about the consumation of marriage in heterosexual marriages must be removed from English law.
Ed goes on to say:
“As someone who is married myself, I think people who want to get married should be able to get married.”
Remember readers that Ed Balls is married to a woman. I'm sure Ed would agree that if Ed was married to a man, life wouldn't be the same as it is being married to his missus. What he seems unaware of is the fact that it is because his spouse is a woman that he was able to get married and that in no way was the fact that he wanted to marry a woman an act of heartless discrimination against gays which went in his favour because he's straight. He was able to marry a woman because that is what marriage is - the union of a man and a woman - a union from which the natural fruit of children are born, and within which they are nurtured, raised and educated by their biological parents.
There are a lot of things people want to do which people cannot do by law because it runs contrary to the good of society - the common good. Most people of sound mind would accept that I should not sleep with Ed Balls or indeed his wife because even if I considered myself a younger, more attractive model than Ed or his wife and that I believed he or she wanted me to sleep with him or her, that my doing so wouldn't really be fair on Ed, or his wife or his family. That's called adultery and even though lots of people do it and don't go to jail for doing so, that doesn't actually foster the common good. When Ed was in power as Education Secretary, I believe there were times when I wanted to throttle the power-frenzied bully of Catholic schools. I wanted to throttle him, but had I done so, it would not have been in the common good. Well, that's what I am called to believe...
Just wanting something is not enough reason to redefine a human institution. There are lots of gay chaps out there who accept the chalice of not getting married and having children because in their own judgement as well as that of the Church and hitherto the State, marriage is a human institution which predates both Church and State - it is a convenant that requires only two people - one man and one woman. And who knows, while Ed 'believes' his uncle would have been swanning down the aisle with another man at the drop of the hat, perhaps he was someone who would rather keep his private 'affairs' to himself.
And, just to ensure that Ed manages to please the homosexual lobby and offend the Churches at the same time, as is fashionable in today's society, he completes his mission by adding:
“I also believe that somebody who is religious and a churchgoer, if the church community wants it in that church, I think people should be able to get married in church too…I really hope the Government will look at that proposal as well. This is something whose time has come.”
How very thoughtful of you, Ed! Isn't the State just so kind to the Church!?
"That's right all you Priests and Bishops out there! We don't want to leave you out of this same-sex marriage lark. We're going to give you the right to have them in your churches all across the country! All hail the glorious State! How benevolent and wise it is! Oh happy day! The day the State gives Churches that prized right to do what the State wants them to do! Oh, cry freedom! At first we'll permit that you perform these ceremonies if you choose and then, when you do, we can see how happy the State has made gay chaps who disagree with their own Church's teaching up and down the country and grant it to every church! Yes, even those ones that hitherto did not think it was their cup of tea!"
Note how Ed cleverly addresses individuals or 'communities' rather than churches or the Catholic Church. So, you know, as long as an individual wants to get married in a church that's something that the State can allow. Quite how the Church that is approached for a 'gay ceremony' feels about it, Ed seems a little more reluctant to discuss. It's quite revealing about the level of psychological warfare that is being employed by our vanguard of elite totalitairan gangsters. Remember, British people, that there really is no Church as such in this man's thinking. The relationship which Ed considers most important to you isn't your relationship with your Church or even your Lord and God, nor perhaps even your 'partner'. The relationship that most concerns Ed is your relationship with the ever-expanding, over-arching and inglorious State. That is essentially what the 'gay marriage' debate is really about. It is about who gets to define what. Because for some reason, I doubt that after 'gay marriage' becomes law, it will be tolerated if you don't buy the Party line. That's how Nick Clegg treats his own Liberal Democrat MPs. That's how Nick Clegg and David Cameron and Ed Balls (It's a cross party whip this) wishes the British public to be treated as well - as people whose voices and opinions matter not a jot. That's the tyranny of liberalism for you. If that's how Clegg treats people in power - how on earth does he wish to treat people without it!
In order to support the notion of 'equal marriage' in terms of heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage, chaps like Ed really give the impression that if he were married to a man and had 'consumated his relationshp' with a man, that it would be equal or the same as being married to a woman and making love to that woman - namely - his wife. That's what 'equal marriage' is, isn't it? That's what the dogma of the liberal agenda would suggest. It posits that same-sex marriage is the same as natural marriage even when the biological reality suggests something so different that the bit about consumating the relationship has to be removed from English law.
Aside from being perhaps the biggest threat to freedom of belief, religion and conscience in recent history, 'gay marriage' is also the greatest insult ever thrown at woman in the history of the United Kingdom. The other insult that seems to get thrown around is to homosexuals themselves because, apparently, according to David Cameron, gay marriage would bring stablilty to relationships and society, a statement which sounds a little homophobic to me. I mean, is he saying that there are loads of homosexuals and lesbians out there involved in unstable, destructive relationships or something and that only marriage can 'cure' them? Tsk tsk. Sounds like a 'bigot' to me...