Laban reports on the insanity of the ‘sexual orientation regulations’. Latest news: the government wants to make it an offence to indirectly induce someone to discriminate. Huh ? What couldn’t be caught under that law ? Who knows ? But, apparently, the horror of indirect inducement is enough to justify shredding the basic principles of law.
I can’t help detecting a certain chutzpah here. Back when these people were forcing through gay marriage, anyone who wondered whether destroying a millennia old institution might just have some adverse consequences further down the road was ridiculed as some kind of Nazi.. No talk of indirect inducements then, any consequence more subtle or long-term than an outbreak of botulism at the wedding reception was not admissible in the debate.
See, it’s at times like this you really need a scorecard. On the one hand, some guy calling for opposition to this law is such a serious threat to social order that it must be criminalised (they’re all about the freedom, these gay rights activists!), yet at the same time the prospect that the rise of gay marriage might lead to the final hollowing out of the institution of marriage is self-evidently ludicrous. So which is it ? Is social order sufficiently robust that the state can play ‘Operation’ with the institutions of society with no consequences, or is it so fragile that even a country vicar speaking out against this legislation threatens to bring about social chaos ?
Actually, I vote for Option C: it’s just a crude attempt to silence their opponents. After all, even some prominent gays have admitted they lied about their motivation in forcing through gay marriage. Now, we’re supposed to believe them on this ? Still, I’m with Laban - this might not be a bad thing. Now, everyone can see what’s at stake. It was never about hairdressers cringing in terror at the thought of someone reading the Bible. Nope, it’s an outright attack on the whole idea of morality and the sooner everyone realises that, the better.
I can’t help detecting a certain chutzpah here. Back when these people were forcing through gay marriage, anyone who wondered whether destroying a millennia old institution might just have some adverse consequences further down the road was ridiculed as some kind of Nazi.. No talk of indirect inducements then, any consequence more subtle or long-term than an outbreak of botulism at the wedding reception was not admissible in the debate.
See, it’s at times like this you really need a scorecard. On the one hand, some guy calling for opposition to this law is such a serious threat to social order that it must be criminalised (they’re all about the freedom, these gay rights activists!), yet at the same time the prospect that the rise of gay marriage might lead to the final hollowing out of the institution of marriage is self-evidently ludicrous. So which is it ? Is social order sufficiently robust that the state can play ‘Operation’ with the institutions of society with no consequences, or is it so fragile that even a country vicar speaking out against this legislation threatens to bring about social chaos ?
Actually, I vote for Option C: it’s just a crude attempt to silence their opponents. After all, even some prominent gays have admitted they lied about their motivation in forcing through gay marriage. Now, we’re supposed to believe them on this ? Still, I’m with Laban - this might not be a bad thing. Now, everyone can see what’s at stake. It was never about hairdressers cringing in terror at the thought of someone reading the Bible. Nope, it’s an outright attack on the whole idea of morality and the sooner everyone realises that, the better.
No comments:
Post a Comment