Fucking AYE
We did it.
The best thing I read on the internet today was;
“The redefinition of marriage is probably the first instance that I can think of where there’s been such a fundamental point at which the teaching of the church is now out of step with the law of our land.”
This was in an article by the Guardian, and was spoken by a bishop in the anglican persuasion.
I would like to leave what i wrote to someone here; there were asking for debate on "natural law" in terms of how to incorporate same sex marriages into our educations systems etc....
here is what I wrote to them...
It is interesting that you ask "So if gay marriage and hetero marriage is now equal? How do we define the difference?", because in my eyes, I do not actually see any difference, and this is what the whole debate is about; making it so there is no difference. I too have my concerns, but most of those are based on peoples personalities, not the agenda at large; for instance, a gay couple I know (very vaguely) dressing their son in pink and fairy wings at 3 years old, That annoys me. But the young boy still has a choice, and he enjoys it, so whatever, I personally, couldn't do that. Still, I do not think that is too damaging, maybe just embarrassing at his 21st photos. (ie so what)
The main issue that I found, was indeed, the introduction of the term "legal guardian", instead of "parent". Though this is probably a necessary step to protect "legal guardians". Though now, the ability to interchange and supercede "legal guardian" may be easier than it would be for "natural parent".
This may lead to a deeper control by the state over children. BUT if this concern became a reality, and if they did it with this as a cover, would we stand by and allow it?
Most likely, because we are mostly apathetic ningkempoops.
But you know what? I cannot worry about whether or not my son could be taken away from my care by the state should he decide at 11 that he was transgendered and I did not agree with him undertaking transition (one of the concerns I have read online (preposterous)). Ultimately, because, it hasn't happened (yet?).
People might be scared that this means same sex couples might go and find any means possible to have children (they have been for years), people might be afraid that they can no longer impose discrimination upon others with impunity (but they still will). When has legality or political correctness stopped people from shaming minorities? Never.
I welcome the thought that children who were abandoned by their parents, or are at risk in the state ward system, might have a second chance in a loving family. By the way, there are so many others out there that think, "ew, children, no!", and others that dearly want a child to love. I'm interested to know peoples views on "right" between IVF and adoption (or other means) in same sex families, as per, "natural". I also know quite a few same sex couple who are absolutely NAILING IT. And I give them my utmost respect and love. And I believe they should be represented in the education system, because it is quite clearly, todays reality.
There are some who should never have children, and sometimes they don't know that until they unfortunately do. Then there are those who most certainly should. Though all in all, I do my best to follow the natural order, and sometimes, I think the natural order is to allow what has happened to be, and to build on it positively. meh.
Ultimately, in all of my research, I couldn't find anything too concerning. I would happily look into any links presented.
I do have empathy for those who have difficulty grasping the reality that same sex couples have had children together (not boilogically), and have to now integrate that into their teachings. As I myself, found myself saying to my son "well, thats not true actually, some times people have two mummies or two daddies", it wasn't too hard, but there was an element of amusement (not in a derogatory way). And really, there has probably been many children left behind by our systems of "classifications" over the years.
Most of the reasons against the legislation relied heavily on conspiracy and removal of rights, and we have to ask ourselves, would we let this happen if they hid this legislation in plain sight and said, "but oh? you wanted this?". Would we?
well that was longer than I anticipated <3
