Top legal mind surveys the Slippery Slope from Civil Unions…

One of Britains top legal minds, Lord Brennan, gives a warning to those in Australia (Liberal Party take note) who think it is nice and harmless to allow Civil Unions; that this will not lead to full gay marriage:

In 2004, when the Civil Partnership Act was passed to provide legal protections for homosexual partnerships, Parliament was led to believe by the government of the day that this did not affect the established institution of marriage. But barely eight years later, political fashion has changed.

He confirms that gay marriage then leads, irresistibly, to other aberrations like group marriage - because if gender no longer matters in marriage, why should number:

In the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage was introduced in 2001, “cohabitation agreements” have been used to give three-way relationships a measure of legal recognition.

And Lord Brennan waves the flag for the biological reality of man-woman bonding, which society reinforces with all its laws and conventions - something we recognise, but we don't create:

Throughout history and across cultures, marriage has been recognised as being between one man and one woman. Over the centuries, when legislatures brought in laws on marriage, they were not inventing it, just recognising its reality.

And yet you can be sure that flabby Liberal MPs will parade their niceness by urging Civil Unions, and making out that opponents of Civil Unions are heartless and extreme. To them must be put one question: if it is reckless to destroy the objective meaning and honoured purpose of marriage (the task given by nature to a male and female, and reinforced by society, to form a home and, typically, bear and raise children), then why is it acceptable to go recklessly right up to the brink of this destruction - just stopping short, for a few years, of the culture-destroying move to homosexual "marriage"? That is what supporters of marriage-like Civil Partnerships are doing, and theirs is a triumph of feel-good Niceness over serious defence of marriage and family and social order.

They need to read this article by Lord Brennan QC, and survey with him the inevitable slippery slope from Civil Partnerships to gay marriage to group marriage to the collective insanity of our culture...

His article is HERE.


Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

6 Responses

  1. BrianJ

    The Slippery Slope argument is one that never offers any proof of the ‘Slope’. The argument goes ‘If A, why not B?’ but there is no connection, evidence or even reason for ‘B’ by virtue of ‘A’. It’s a commonly used debating technique that prompts for the defence of ‘B’, despite there never being a reason for ‘B’ in the first place. Nice try, but it’s nonsense.

  2. RonO

    Why is it that the gay community cannot bring themselves to accept the term Gay Union or Homosexual Partnership, etc? These are truthful definitions. A study of the definition of the word marriage (here is the Oxford Didtionary definition) reveals –

    marriage (mar|riage)
    Pronunciation: /ˈmarɪdʒ/
    -the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

    So the gay lobby wishes to change the definition of the word marriage? Why not change the definition of the word dog to include felines?

    @BrianJ – I’m sorry, but the slippery slope you can’t see is quite clear to me. In this article, Lord Brennan has clearly shown a number of historical examples from different geographical and socio-economic areas where the advent of civil unions has already produced results which are eating away at the moral fibre of those juridictions.

    The reason for marriage originally was to facilitate the child-bearing and raising, and I’m yet to see any studies which refute the fact that a loving marriage between a man and a woman has the best long term outcomes for the children involved.

    • Rebecca

      Hang on, childbearing doesn’t neccesarily require the mother to be married. Nor does childraising. The fertilisation of an egg to form a new life needs both male and female contribution, and its ideal for the baby resulting to have both male and female influences to grow into a well adjusted adult, but marriage isn’t going to facilitate anything.

  3. BrianJ

    I totally support the objection to religious marriage for same sex couples. It’s against the beliefs of the faith holders. I do however support secular marriage status for same sex couples, and no matter how hard I try to do not see how granting secular marriage equality to same sex couples leads to marriages with animals, rocks and polygamy, as they are completely different, absurd concepts. This is why I weary of seeing the slippery slope argument in use because it never proves how one law changing implies another will change. It is like saying if today we have 18 as the legal drinking age, why not 17, then 16 and then 14. It just does not work that way.

    • Rebecca

      Polygamy isn’t neccesarily an absurd concept, its a long practiced aspect of culture, found within a specific religion. It may not be what our culture practices, but that doesn’t make it wrong if all parties consent.

Leave a comment