| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
In defence of….criticising civil partnerships
Dear Editor,
There are many pressing issues that confront us in the world today. In the scale of things the furore about civil partnerships and homosexuality is not one of my top priorities. However, I came across three recent criticisms of the new same-sex civil partnership contracts that prompted me to think about the issue.All these critics were lambasted for expressing their views.The first was the columnist Peter Hitchens on a radio panel discussion programme - a man not known for withholding his views, even when they run counter to public opinion.The second was an incident reported in the Times,when a retired couple were questioned by police for 80 minutes. A council spokesman said the couple had "displayed potentially homophobic attitudes" in the Christian literature they wished to promote. The third was Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, who was asked his views about these partnerships, and said that he thought, "It does not augur well in building the very foundations of society: stability, family relationships. And it is something we would certainly not in any form encourage the community to be involved in.". Asked on the BBC Radio 4 PM programme if homosexuality was harmful to society, he shared his views as invited,"Certainly it is a practice that in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society, it is. It is not acceptable.'
It has become unacceptable in Britain to comment on homosexuality in other than a positive manner. On matters of religion one can be as critical as one likes, to the point that abuse, insult and mockery are defended as legitimate expressions of free speech. Incitement to violence or vigilantism against any individual or group could lead to prosecution. One might understand the hostility if the recently expressed views on civil partnerships were similarly abusive, insulting or mocking. One the contrary however, these views - that were pilloried in the media - were articulated calmly in a reasoned manner.They are an expression of views that I suspect large numbers of people in Britain hold, but are now too afraid to utter.This in itself should be alarming to the public at large, some of whom recognise that liberalism can be as tyrannical as any other political ideology in censoring peoples' thoughts.
Sexuality, it is argued, is not like religion, which is a set of convictions that are held voluntarily. Currently, the predominant view in Europe and the USA is that sexuality is innate, closer to skin colour and race, than to a chosen lifestyle.This is a fallacious argument.Anyone who has children as I do will know that they may have very different innate characteristics despite their almost identical environmental stimuli. Where these innate characteristics are negative - laziness, aggression, unruly behaviour, an insatiable appetite for sweets - I know of no parent or teacher that excuses behaviour based on these traits with the argument that they are somehow inherent. Part of growing up is to learn how to control,overcome and work around our negative traits.Part of the failure of modern society is that so many people fail to develop a control over some of these things.
The resultant inability to control sexual desire, appetite, and manners manifests as promiscuity, obesity and antisocial behaviour. With respect to the social and moral fabric of society, Britain faces unquestionable problems. Unwanted pregnancies among under 16's are rising, as are sexually transmitted diseases, secondary infertility, emotional problems associated with unstable relationships, antisocial behaviour, and drug and alcohol abuse.The decay in the institution of family and a subsequent rise in problems associated with poor parenting are well documented.The population increases at an ever slower rate as sexual activity is increasingly divorced from procreation. Fatherhood is increasingly ambiguous; over 30% of all paternity tests conducted for men being pursued by the CSA proved that these men were not the fathers of the children they were expected to provide for.
Yet when anyone suggests a causal link to promiscuity, same-sex relationships or those things that generally undermine the family unit, they are attacked as illiberal, and in some way as enemies of those victims of modern Britain's problems - instead of being seen as what they really are: their advocates. Liberal Britain is unwilling to even see these issues questioned, never mind confronted, and as a consequence many people continue to suffer as society fails to learn some obvious lessons. I cannot solve this collective denial but would simply ask this question. If it were proved that the accumulated harm from such problems, could be solved by restrictions on individuals, would liberal Britain ever legislate to curtail individual freedoms instead of burying its head in the sand, and its morality and conscience in the earth?
Dr Asif Ansari Middlesex, UK
| |
|
|
