As some of you may or may not know, a private members’ bill was introduced to the floor of the Assembly today on Marriage Equality which unfortunately was defeated.
Further, I have just finished watching Jim Allister on BBC Newsline this evening where he equated Same Sex Marriage with moves to introduce Polygamy (there are no moves whatsoever for this in the North) and that marriage is ‘historically a communion between one man and one woman’. Are people in the LGBT community more likely to want polygamy? Is there evidence of this? This is something new to me but I’m certain that Jim Allister will provide us with his evidence from his extensive research.
To be honest, I could not believe what my ears were hearing. According to Jim et al, Same Sex Marriage is a ‘perversion’. Further, ‘[h]istorically, for a very good reason, marriage has long been defined as the union of one man and one woman.’ Well, please do tell us what is this ‘good reason’. Times change and what was the norm back in Judea two millenia ago may not be the norm nowadays here in Europe.
Further, in the Assembly Allister employed the age old tactic used by all barristers, the ‘slippery slope’ argument where we show us the worst case scenario. Accordingly, that is ‘so-called adoption and on and on it goes’. Is gay adoption such a horrible notion? Are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or trans-gender people unable to rear children or bring them up in a loving environment?
Aside from Allister’s hate filled opinions, and they are filled with homophobic hate , what annoyed me more is the fact that BBC’s Donna Traynor did not hold him to account. Why is Same Sex Marriage a ‘perversion’? He was given a free ride and a soap box to repeat what he says completely unhindered. On what grounds have you come to these conclusions Jim?
Could it be Leviticus 20:13? ‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.‘
Or maybe it is Corinthians 6:9-10? ‘Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.’
Well, let’s look a little at Leviticus for a moment, shall we? Accordingly, clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp are abominations to God, yet there is no business in the Assembly from what I have seen on it’s site to ban there sale.
How about slavery being ok? Is there any proposed Assembly business trying to bring it back into the North? Maybe it will bring the economic boost we have been searching for?
Jim seems to be picking and choosing the parts of Leviticus and the Bible that he likes, why ever so? Further, Jim’s comments are a great example of why we should try and leave religion out of politics as much as possible as being held to believe in some of the teachings of a text while ignoring others merely shows one up for being a fraud. Further, it merely goes to highlight one’s deep seated prejudices.
But will any of this have an effect on Jim Allister in the next Assembly elections? I doubt it. Unfortunately, there is still a fairly socially conservative electorate in his constituency who will agree 100% with his interpretation of the bible, while completely ignoring the other teachings in scripture that may obviously show up the general absurdity of some parts of the bible.
I’m not anti-Christian, however, I think like most others I don’t take everything said in a book where parts are over two thousand years old at face value.