You can call a giraffe a horse. But that won’t make it a horse. It remains, simply and accurately, a giraffe.
Some might argue: “Why can’t it be called a horse? A giraffe is an animal. It has four legs, a head, a neck and a tail. Surely, it’s a horse. What more do you want?”
They might even demand that, in the name of ‘equality’ and ‘in all fairness’, a giraffe is fully entitled to be, and indeed from now on must be, called a ‘horse’.
What has this got to do with UKIP and same-sex marriage?
I believe UKIP needs to learn lessons from the impact of same-sex marriage and to recognise its role in the larger Cultural Marxism agenda. As the activists work to break down society incrementally, every concession we grant them is of vital significance. Same-sex marriage legalised the idea that things which are demonstrably different are the same, and opened the door to future nonsensical policies. The latest of these is the proposed reform to the Gender Recognition Act, which could allow adults to change their birth certificates without a doctor’s assessment and identify their gender as ‘X’ if they wish.
However ridiculous this seems, UKIP must not be complacent about the threat this potential legislation poses to our society. As we saw with same-sex marriage, the fact that no great moral thinker, down the ages, had ever advocated the idea, did not stop it passing into law or its subsequent tyrannical cultural enforcement via the ‘Ministry of Truth’.
Indeed, I think the wise men of previous generations, would have considered the idea of equating marriage – – a union of two opposite sexes chiefly originated to produce children with chromosomes from both partners, and also and to provide the social building block of a family – – with same-sex relationships so ludicrous that they could not have conceived that any generation could ever be so silly as to propose it.
They recognised that, while there are no real differences between human beings from all over the world, there are fundamental differences between male and female human beings. Men and women are equal but not the same; their biological, physical and emotional relationships are entirely different and to pretend otherwise is either naive or devious.
The American author and commentator Dennis Prager wrote a chillingly prescient warning in 2012:
‘There is a fierce battle taking place to render meaningless the man-woman distinction; the most important distinction regarding human beings’ personal identity. Nothing would accomplish this as much as same-sex marriage. The whole premise of same-sex marriage is that gender is insignificant. It doesn’t matter whether you marry a man or a woman. Love, not gender, matters’.
He also warned of ‘the consequences for our children and grandchildren’ and gave ‘gender confusion and the loss of motherhood and fatherhood as values’ as examples.
His warning, like so many others, was ignored. And now, five years later, we have Justine Greening’s statement and the proposed Gender Recognition Act reforms…..
But, rolling back for a moment, a few thoughts to bear in mind:
In 2012, only gay activists (a minority group within a minority group) fought for same-sex marriage. It became clear from polls, radio phone-ins, newspaper essays written by gay people, and open discussions that there was no clear majority amongst the gay community pushing for the changes.
Most said their ‘equal rights’ as relating to marriage were comfortably satisfied by civil partnerships. Indeed, they generally expressed the same amazement, shared by the public as a whole, that the issue was apparently a priority for David Cameron and the coalition.
Gay people who, according to ONS figures, represent approximately 2.5% of the population are not the problem here. It is the ‘tyranny of an activist minority’ within the 2.5% that causes the damage. Unfortunately, as so often happens, the organised, concentrated minority misleads and subjugates the unprepared, diffuse majority.
The result was that twenty-four million married people had their marriages redefined without a semblance of a proper consultation, let alone consent. No party at all had it in their manifesto before the previous election.
660,000 people signed a petition opposing gay marriage. It was ignored. A much smaller number (only 100,000 approximately) entered into civil partnerships in the eight years following them becoming legal in 2005. That number is only a small single-digit percentage of the number of the gay community.
I believe approximately 15,000 gay marriages took place between March 2014 and October 2015. About half of those involved people who were already in civil partnerships.
I think the numbers speak for themselves. They show that many wrong-headed politicians have an unreliable grasp of the concept of democracy, a dwindling tolerance of free speech, and a total lack of concern for the huge societal damage they will inflict on future generations.
I also believe that ‘equality and fairness’ is not the motivation of most gay activists. They argue for tolerance, yet respond with vitriolic and spiteful intolerance to anyone who dares to disagree with them.
They appear to be seeking not just acceptance (which they already have) but the affirming stamp of official social approval. If you have the ‘right’ to other people’s approval then you automatically deprive those people of their basic human ‘right’ to their own opinions and values.
Individual same-sex couples have, of course, the right to think of their relationship as a ‘marriage’ if they wish. But they have no right to force other people to think so.
What do I want UKIP to do about it? I expect UKIP not to ignore the warnings, and to fight fiercely and consistently against a movement that has very little to do with love and equality. It has far more to do with a serious attack on personal freedom of opinions, speech and actions.
I expect UKIP to defend future generations from the consequences of today’s foolishness.