Thursday, 1 December 2011

For or Against?

We're all aware of The National Organization 'for' Marriage (NOM) in the United States, right? They were founded back in 2007 to campaign - successfully, unfortunately - for the passage of California's Proposition 8 which removed the right of same sex couples in the state to marry, taking away the right they already had.

More even than their bigorty and lies, what annoys me about NOM is that 'for'. National Organization for Marriage. No, my dears, no no no. You're not for marriage, you're against it. Get your facts right.

I like, as much as the next Brit, to mock America (it's loving, we swear), and this was just another opportunity for me to laugh at those silly bigoted right wingers over the pond who could use 'for' to mean 'against' and get away with it. Actually, that didn't occur to me at the time, I just needed a way to link into how fucking ashamed I am to announce...

(drum roll please?)

Yes... this is what you think it is. This is another anti-marriage organisation campaigning under the pretence of protecting families and preventing us all turning into anarchistic, animal-molesting cannibals, which I believe is what they think will happen. And yes, in my country. Scotland is currently undergoing a consultation on allowing same-sex couples to marry and the Kirk, the Catholic Church and representatives from the Muslim community are the most prominent to come out (no pun intended) against the introduction of equal marriage in Scotland, but the new campaign is just ace. It's nice to see good old classic lies and scaremongering:  

Then we have the delightful Mr Gordon Wilson, former leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party, who is trying to freak his old party out by claiming that if equal marriage is introduced by the Nats it will affect the independence referendum (my scaremongering detectors are going mad).

(brief aside for anyone from overseas or even down South: 

        • Scottish National Party ""tend towards the initial view" that marriage should be expanded, but await the results of the consultation
        • The Scottish Labour Party supports equal marriage
        • The Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party leader, Ruth Davidson, supports equal marriage
        • The Scottish Liberal Democrats... guess? Yeah, they support it too.
        • The Scottish Green P- oh, you get the idea, basically, our main parties are all YAY!
okay, back to the post)
So, we've established there are a significant number of people in my country who are stuck in the dark ages and are against the majority (polling has put Scotland pretty consistently at 60% in support of equal marriage), so what are they saying?

The Kirk's statement said: 
"To redefine marriage to include same-sex marriage may have significant and, as yet, inadequately considered repercussions for our country, for the well-being of families, communities and individuals." 
... the well-being of families... because gay people don't have families?

Cardinal Keith O'Brien of the Catholic Church (that bastion of family values) had the following to say:
“If the Scottish Government attempt to demolish a universally recognised human right, they will have forfeited the trust which the nation, including people of all faiths and none, have passed in them and their tolerance will shame Scotland in the eyes of the world."
Yes, the man is clearly, a little off. So straight marriage is a 'universally recognised human right' which gays are attempting to exterminate? Correct? Oh wait...
Also, I'm no fan of the word 'tolerance', I don't want to be tolerated, that makes it seem like you are just putting up with it, however I'll take it, quite frankly. However, the way the good Cardinal uses it, you'd almost think the bigot thinks tolerance and respect of other people is a bad thing. What would his chum Jesus say?
What is more, if accepting LGBT people and working for that is going to shame us in the eyes of the world, let's get shaming. And is Mr O'Brien forgetting we're the country that released Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to much condemnation? Our government has some glorious moments of sticking it to the man. Equal marriage, releasing on compassionate grounds a man who [may have] been involved in the deaths of 270 people, equal marriage, releasing on... yeah, I can see what our government might be more widely criticised for. 

(Wee extra note again: seeing as I dragged it up, I do support the decision of Kenny MacAskill and co to release Al-Mehgrahi. It was the right decision under the circumstances presented - disgusting to see people complaining that he's still alive two years later. Slow death from a terminal illness? I would already have been to Dignitas by now, not much of a life.)

Ann Allen of the CoS seems to be excreting out of her mouth these days: 
“There are all sorts of consequences that are going to result if the Scottish Government proceed down this route.
“I cannot see one positive consequence for the young people of Scotland or for the parents and grandparents in Scotland.
“It’s certainly not a route that I want to see our society travelling down.”
I feel the only response is to post this.

And one last gem from Bashir Maan, a Muslim community leader:
“I’m concerned about this, and so is the Muslim community, because I think it could be the beginning of the destruction of society as we know it.”
“If there’s no family, what about society? These politicians should look forward and have some foresight – what will become of the family without the union of a man and woman?”
Again: gays have families. Actually...


Doubt that got my point across any better than it would have without shouting but it made me feel better.

I feel that old adage is appropriate here.

Guys, if you don't want to get marry someone of the same-sex, don't.*

* oops, I forgot, this whole 'letting Teh Gayz marry' business involves us indoctrinating the whole population to our perverse ways, right? (The Gay Agenda™, p246, art. 4 para. 1(c))

EDIT i): A friend of mine who is anti-any marriage decided to point this out as I posted. That's not what this is about. While there are civil partnerships and marriage, anyone, regardless of their religion, lack thereof, ethnicity, gender ought to have equal access to it. I support straight civil partnerships, however, as straights aren't fighting heterophobia in schools and workplaces across the country, I do believe that is a bit of a secondary concern... should be dealt with as soon as possible, but there aren't exactly well financed, misleading organisations campaigning against it, are there?

EDIT ii): These are small, mean, bigoted, disgusting, lying individuals. I feel nothing but contempt.

I am seething. Not only does he disparage marriage, I can live with that, but he attacks families. Families that happen to be a little less than nuclear. Fuck you. Fuck all of you shitheads. I give up on being in any way articulated. I am going to sit here swearing. Sit here, on my own, like a crazy person hollering expletives at my computer screen.
I am seriously glad Ann Allen is not a fucking teacher any more. YES YOU ARE GOING TO BE LABELLED AS BIGOTED AND NARROW MINDED. Of course you are. Because you fucking are. Want a positive result for the young people? Acceptance.  Kids in schools who can know that sometime in the future their government and most of their country is for them and accepts them and whoever they chose to be with, it doesn't matter to them. Anyone can get a civil partnership, anyone can get a marriage.  

Separate is inherently unequal.

No comments:

Post a Comment