by The Editor
18 March, 2012
Many thoughtful well-adjusted people throughout the world will be astonished at the lengths to which the so-called "liberal left" in the United Kingdom will go to promote what they call "equality". Their latest ploy is to call for the legitimisation of marriage between two persons of the same sex on the somewhat questionable grounds that restricting the use of the term "marriage" to a life-long union between a man and a woman is to deprive two friends of the same sex (who, under reecently-introduced legislation, already have the right to form "civil partnerships" with all the legal advantages of marriage) are somehow being discriminated against because they are not considered to be a "married couple".
My object in this essay is to emphasise the importance of two natural facts of life which no system of laws can overturn, which are essential to the maintenance of true personal liberty, and which the liberal left wish to ignore in the interests of their skewed ideas of "equality".
The first and essential point, that is hardly ever mentioned in the propaganda for "sexual equality", is that marriage is generally accepted and legally recognised as the preferred way of supporting and regulating the procreation and rearing of children.
The "unitary family" has long been the bedrock of civilsed society in the UK as in many other countries around the world. Practically everybody everywhere recognizes that "blood is thicker than water". In good times and bad, "traditional" families are still buttressed by "housewife" mother, "bread-winner" father, grand-parents, uncles, aunts, siblings, and cousins. The fact is, and always shall be, that the sexes are not "equal" in the only sense that has any significance.
At a time when marriage is already threatened by widespread sexual indiscipline, recognition of same-sex (i.e. deliberately infertile) marriage would further erode one of the structural pillars of British society, further weaken the public will to resist sexual promiscuity, and lead to increased incidence of "sexually-transmitted" diseases at a time when the pharmaceutical industry reports that existing antibiotic treatments are becoming ineffective. This might contribute to a much-needed reduction in the UK population: but a better method would be to abandon "family allowances" and make parents totally responsible for rearing children they publicly and confidently acknowledge as being "their own". It is easy to see in hindsight that Barbara Castle's "compassionate" policy has had unwelcome, if unintended, consequences.
If the institution of marriage were to be further undermined at the instigation of a reckless and unrepresentative minority, it might set the UK on a helter-skelter slide towards making the State responsible for the rearing of all children in some such totalitarian manner as that discusssed in Book V of Plato's Republic. I doubt if even the liberal-left would welcome such a development.
Perhaps the natural need (and therefore right) to discriminate on grounds of sex before contemplating traditional marriage is at the root of the loony-left's obsession with "anti-discrimination" legislation and its introduction in recent years of a plethora of such legislation. This seems to me to be incompatible with true "liberalism" in that it tends to destroy what I consider to be the individual's absolute right to discriminate between what he or she judges to be "right" or "wrong" in any given set of circumstances, to act accordingly, and to suffer or enjoy the consequences. Anti-discrimination legislation turns human beings into robots because it gets in the way of Mother Nature's method of education into personal responsibility. It should be obvious that such legislation increases unemployment because irresponsible people are unemployable and employers are naturally reluctant to employ individuals they cannot get rid of quickly and easily when they have proved to the employer's satisfaction that they are not "up to the job".
There was a time, not so very long ago, when to describe an individual as "discriminating" was a high compliment. If liberty means anything, it is that the responsible individual in a "free" society can and must be trusted to live and act in that society without causing recognisable harm to other individuals or their shared environment. Irresponsible individuals are not fit to be free, and some form of correction must be applied to them as a consequence, and never in anticipation, of their misbehaviour. This seems to me to require that discrimination be encouraged, not legislated against.
There is a widespread tendency on the part of the "gay" sub-set of the community to describe opponents of same-sex marriage as "homophobic". At root, this means that we hate human beings, and nothing could be further from the truth. Truly homophilic persons such as myself wish human beings of both sexes nothing but happy and fulfilled lives.
We also accept that mores as well as language tend to change over time. But although "gay" and "happy" might once have been almost synonymous, it seems to me that in present-day parlance, "happy families" and "gay families" are close to being contradictions in terms.