Humbled Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:34 pm
“Coalition for Marriage.
See c4m.org.uk “
We look at the site Humbled has posted . And this is what we then read on a page “about” their mission
The Coalition for Marriage is an umbrella group of individuals and organisations in the UK that support traditional marriage and opposed its redefinition.
Our supporters believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others and for life.
Since the redefinition of marriage in 2013, the Coalition has worked to protect freedom of conscience on marriage for our supporters and resist attempts by the government and lobby groups to coerce people into supporting same-sex marriage against their conscience.
We also continue to work to promote traditional marriage as a ‘gold-standard’ for couples and wider society, drawing on the substantial body of evidence which supports this view.
The Coalition is committed to a reasoned and courteous debate on this issue, and will highlight any intimidation or intolerance shown to supporters of traditional marriage.
end quote (my bold)
Evidently these folk believe “freedom of conscience on marriage” , means marriage must thus need to” remain defined” as being only something that can only ever happen between man and women (no same sex marriages should be allowed)
Its as if, as soon as Gay folk are able to get married as well. Suddenly those folk who don’t agree with it, will thus have lost their own “freedom of conscience on marriage” somehow
Yet.How do acts of gay marriages (which is what someone else will choose to do) ,do anything to put a stop to the existence of these (meaning those who remain against the idea of it) people’s own “freedom of conscience on marriage” ?
Nobody is doing that.Nobody is making any law to stop these people personal conscience (thought)
Thankfully. The Coalition is committed to a reasoned and courteous debate on this issue.
I’m all for that (not sure how the Coalition actually expect to ever be able to enter into debate , though ? . Seem that they don’t even allow anyone-else to be able to comment on their blog, or even on their youtube video either !!. So how is this debate supposed to happen ?. By telepathy ?? .Who knows.I notice how its a pretty common theme though, for groups of believers to most usually only choose to enter into one sided type discussion. (for another instance check out Ken Ham’s blog at Answers in Genesis.Or the Exclusive Brethren blog which most-usually will only ever allow ,through, the comments which suit their own agenda) This common phenomena is not a good sign.More often its perhaps because they already know how they cannot win ?.As too often their ideas, are also wrong, an so also wont be able to stand up to any real amount of scrutiny either)
They ,will highlight any intimidation or intolerance shown to supporters of traditional marriage.
Nothing wrong with that.I’m all for it. I’m even inclined to be very interested myself, in helping to highlight intolerance as well too
And i suggest their stance may seem somewhat intolerant ?. (readers can decide that for themselves) If they honest do want to be tolerant, then we need to wonder, why wont they allow alternative views to also be aired ?
Now.How about we look at this from another angle.Rather than a discussion about traditional marriage. How about we make it into a discussion about traditional sports (so to compare. And also to help further explore this type of situation)
Perhaps there is some people who still don’t see it as traditional,that any women should ever be able to play certain types of sports either
Some people also opposed this kind of change too.The don’t like the idea that sports should be redefined .In fact, women first made their appearance in the Olympic Games in Paris in 1900
However ,how did this put a stop the men’s freedom of conscience in regard to “their distaste” of women’s ability to start entering into Olympic games
It didn’t remove that right.Men still retained that right. For they still had every right to retain the thought that they still thought it seemed wrong
However some more tolerance was also gained.Not lost
For indeed ,
1 .men still retained every right (of their own),to decide to refuse to enter Olympic games, along side women
2 while women gained their own right (of their own) too.To also have the choice to decide to enter the Olympic games themselves
And so likewise in regard to traditional marriage (there is very little difference.Religion doesn’t get to demand to remain to be something special and taboo .That’s what too often allowed religion to become harmful)
1 those who’s freedom of conscience decide that traditional marriage should only ever be between man and women.Can still be able to make this choice for themselves.Our law still tolerate this, for indeed they still don’t need to be marrying anyone of the same sex as themselves
2 while gay folk who’s freedom of conscience decide that traditional marriage should be extended so as to also tolerate same sex marriage as well.Can indeed choose to make this choice for themselves
Therefore once again some more tolerance was also gained in this situation as well.Not lost
So the real question here would seem to be (in my opinion anyways). How many will begin to be humble enough to be able to begin to see and accept it ?
I suggest, maybe many people (specially people these days 2017.Day’s when now even women can also enter into Olympic games as well too) could be pretty hard pressed to ever be still able to see, exclusion of all others and for life, as honestly looking like it’s any realistic definition of what “tolerance” should perhaps-be supposed to mean